The Art of Philosophy

From today's discussion on what constitutes art, and what is considered a minor or major art, I must ask the questions: Is philosophy an art? Is there an "Art of Philosophy"? If philosophy is an art, is it a "major" or a "minor" art?

I believe philosophy is an art because it is a relational activity between persons, or between a person and their thoughts (which are created by a person's relationship (perception) with an observed or imagined object (tangible or intangible - includes thoughts), or other being; and this art form is practiced through forms of communication. When exercised properly (observer/receiver of philosophical communication experiences some cognitive response that furthers their spiritual/mental evolution), I would consider philosophy to be a "major" art. In order for philosophy to be classified as a "major" art, I would expect merit and gain for both the originator and the receiver of a philosophical discourse. Philosophy practiced without these elements would be "minor" and unworthy of the descriptor of either art or philosophy.

Questions:
1. Is philosophy an art? If you consider it an art, do you consider it a "major"or "minor" art?

2. Do all creative endeavors, including food preparation, presentation, and consumption, have the potential to be either a "major" or a "minor" art depending on the artistry of the creator and the sociocultural relativity of the observer to the object created (successfulness and quality of communication)?

2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.

Response to ETM's Question "What sections do I believe we should cover in this course?

Having just completed the P of M course last semester, I would prefer to spend more time on Appreciation, understanding and nature (I'm a big fan of "nature as art" and the artistic nature of other beings). For those same reasons and the portrait and landscape qualities of some photography, I'm very interested in Photography and representation.
I'm curious to learn about Feelings and fictions simply because it is a topic I have not previously contemplated. I abhor horror movies, I don't subject myself to them (or extreme violence or pornography) however, I am curious about what they do to us from a biological/psychological perspective - what function do they/can they serve to those who expose themselves to it, and what it is that I and others who never expose ourselves to horror as entertainment are, perhaps, missing. I am interested in Part 9 because I lack knowledge on this topic, and I'm very curious about most things which are novel to me. Wouldn't mind skipping Section 10 just because I know the topic makes me uncomfortable, but once again, novelty, curiosity of philosophical angle to topic...
Would love to debate Public Art and Are there societies without art? because these are topics I am passionate about, and about which I am eager to learn more.
I assume DKJ has read the text and would appreciate his insight on the topics, and I think your idea for an Aesthetics II has great merit.

Purpose, Utility, Intent, and Impermanency

I spent a good part of my summer pondering the impermanent nature of everything and wondering what the true purpose might be behind creating that, which by design, must decay.

I considered the possibility that it is all about evolution. But again, the fact that decay is inevitable for all things left me feeling that would be an illogical and impoverished evolutionary path - where and what is the gain when the solar system disappears?

This led me to wonder about the utility of categorizations like purpose, function, and performance in an impermanent world. What is the purpose/meaning of life? What is the function of evolution? Who/What/How was what we now classify as "life" created? Was it done intentionally and cognitively? Was impermanence assigned as an inherent characteristic of the original design? What is the logical outcome of design impermanency? What is/should be the ultimate goal of an impermanent existence for a reflective being?

Telfer's desire to classify food as a simple and minor art, partially because of food's utilitarian nature, its transiency, intensity of aesthetic reactions, aesthetic judgments, and the nature of "works of art" and "art forms" brought me back to my summer musings - but with a twist. Why do beings create? What is the purpose of the activity of creating? Does it serve an evolutionary function? Is it an aspect of a being's biological imperative? Is the act of creating inherently artistic? Is the creation of life an artistic act? Do all life forms create? Is creativity a necessity to actualize art? Must creativity necessarily be cogitative and intentional? Can art be created by the subconscious? Or accidentally? Should art be compared through interartistic disciplines?

I am extremely curious about humankind's propensity for judging and labeling, especially in the very personal and subjective realm of art. I am concerned about our society's obsession with value judgments proceeding from its materialistic, unethical, and spiritually impoverished mores and their misapplication to art.

More Questions:

Are judgments and dichotomies the result of the brain's biological need to find patterns through hierarchical imposition? Is this why society feels compelled to judge art? If it is, how does judging art inform us biologically or evolutionarily?

Reacting to Telfer's Food as Art

Telfer posits that the process of preparing, presenting, and consuming meals is too common, too necessary, too simple, too temporally, spatially, and sequentially insufficient to be considered as art. She defends these claims with references to the accepted practices of evaluation and classification to determine an artifact’s status as an art form or a work of art (p 20). She states food can be, and in some cases, is, an art, but it is only a minor art because it is not only simple, it is also limited by its impermanence, meaninglessness, and its inability to move us (p 26).

I found this particular reasoning constrictive, incomplete, and biased.

I agree with the idea offered in class by Ed, that the person experiencing the thing will be the one imposing the meaning of art upon it.

I think art is, by its nature, relational; and its relational nature has its origins in biology. All of our sensory perceptions are the result of signals transported through various organic mechanisms to the brain, which then interprets this data. Everyone is a unique assemblage of organic, psychological, and historical experiences. Although we may share many experiences in common, our associations are filtered through our individuation.

Art is a construct. Whether it is a social or cultural construct, each person will have a unique relationship to art. While individuals in our society may have evolved beyond the need for interpretation of particular organic sensory stimuli for survival, we cannot deny their rank as survival mechanisms for our ancestors. I am unwilling to presume that my concept of art is superior to any other person's concept of art (external judgment of a foreigner's internal experience). For these reasons, I am uncomfortable with evaluating or classifying any art as major or minor.

In response to Jacob's question, I believe that food is an art to those who experience it as such, and that often, the nature of the preparation, presentation, and consumption of food is inherently artistic.

My Question:
Can Telfer legitimately claim a disconnect between what food we eat, how and where it is grown or raised, how it is processed, transported, stored, marketed, obtained, and utilized by us, from what it tells us about the world and ourselves, as well as what it represents to us and others? (P 27

Reflecting on Environmental Protection Policies and Forest Management

Section 40 of the Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices Act (MGL Chapter 132) declares that the public welfare requires the rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection of forest lands for the purpose of conserving water, preventing floods and soil erosion, improving the conditions for wildlife and recreation, protecting and improving air and water quality, and providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the commonwealth.

Are the goals to rehabilitate, maintain, and protect forest lands to conserve water, prevent floods and soil erosion, protect and improve air and water quality, and improve conditions for wildlife compatible with the goals of improving conditions for recreation, or of providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the state?

Should these policies be changed to reflect the broader goal of restoring natural forest habitat and wildlife communities or restructured to prevent long-term habitat and biodiversity losses?

Due to the interdependent nature of all life within and between ecosystems, issues of connectivity and the necessity of wildlife corridors must be considered. How do we balance conservation, preservation, or restoration of environmental systems across private and multi-use public lands? Does preservation of endangered and at risk species warrant dominance of private land by state or federal policies? How do we morally determine the merit, and fate, of invasive species in conflict with native species? How do we categorize non-native species that have been occupying the continent for 200 years? For 100 years? For 50 years? For 30 years? How do we judge and respond to invasive species whose offspring mature in 1 year? Literally hundreds of generations of some invasive species have successfully occupied our lands. At what point do we classify non-native species as native? Should we ever classify non-native species as native? Do invasive species ever occupy a niche without ousting the former occupants of that niche? If restoration requires it, how do we quantify the benefit of disturbing lands previously disturbed by anthropogenic actions?

What is the goal? Is the goal restoration to pre-anthropogenically disturbed condition? Is the goal obtaining a balance between post-anthropogenically disturbed condition in a manner that best supports the maximum environmental health and biodiversity of native habitat, flora, and fauna?

From a philosophical point of view, if this is the ethical position, is it a feasible position? If this involves extinct species and we have the technological ability to recreate extinct species, should we? How do we return the past without dislodging the present and affecting the future? What is our ethical obligation to the present? What is our ethical obligation to the future? Do we have any moral obligation to the past?