Im doing a course on the philosophy and art and literature. The philosophy of. Not art and literature. Formulism is one view point i.e. the idea that the experience of art is to do with the forms that the picture contains or that the literature creates in ones mind. At first i dismissed this idea but i think i have found a way through this thinking to dismiss/confirm platos idea of eternal forms. Anydony know this? Plato said that there are eternal forms in heaven (or wherever) and that when we see forms here on earth the soul (as we age) slowly comes to remember that it has seen them before and strives to return. He says there are forms for all things we might encounter. I disagree. I think we see forms as we grow and learn what they are and through this we learn other things such as colour etc. An example he gives is a chicken. If we see a chicken with one leg, we still recognise that it is a chicken but we recognise that it is a chicken but with a leg missing. It has a different form to a chicken though right!? But have we been taught by our parents/elders that it is a chicken missing a leg. Personally i think we have been taught these things. We see a radiator and we are told that it is a radiator. We may see a green ( :bugeye: ) radiator but we still recognise it as a radiator. It is through this that we learn the concept of colours and know that the radiators form is a radiator and it is just the colour that is different. Now. If we see a photograph of a pyramid as we look at it we accept that it is a photograph and put this out of our minds. We 'home in' on the pyramid itself. What the pyramidal shape means to us will have different meanings to eahc person (i think). A person who has, for example, a negative experience involving a pyramid, may not like the picture. ( a negative experience could have been when one was in egypt looking at them close up and a scorpion jumped from it and stung u). The observer of the photograph therefore does not like the pyramidal form. However. This is the intial viewing. The more the person looks at it they might see that it is not just a pyramid but a series of bricks. a series of rectangles and it is not in fact a pyramid. There are no actual lines defining the pyramid are there!?? No. from a distance it may look like that but it isnt. So what does the rectangle mean to the individual and what do a mass of them mean to them?? An artist veiwing the same photo may get to this point and this artist is interested in light. Light and darkness and s/he may begin to view the mesh pattern between the bricks. A large series of this- #. Following me? So what does the mesh mean to the individual? So. Eternal forms? If we each have seen every form in heaven before we were born wouldnt our experiences of the forms be the same (assuming that heaven is a 'safe' and 'good' place). The point is that no-one should have had a negative experience with any forms in heaven. If a large scale survey was done with very basic, primal forms then the reults should be the same for every person. Every person should rate the triangle, square. circle etc the same. If the reults show this then we could conclude that platos idea os eternal forms is in fact correct. If the individuals rated the forms vastly different then we can conclude the opposite. The down fall of this is that like i have said, eahc person views an object differently. 2 people viewing the same triangle may see different things e.g one may see the dark lines of the triangle forming the shape of the triangle with an empty middle and another may see the space in the middle as the actual triangle and the dark lines mark the outside of it. Im sure there is something that could be done along these lines though. Any suggestions?? p.s the mesh could break the mesh down further into a series of lines etc. The point is that the individual sees whatever they see but the basic forms mean something to the individual. this may seem like things are being scrutinised to harshly but even paintings with human forms, or trains, mean something to the individual.
And no stealing any of my ideas! :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i disagree with platos idea!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My thought was that we learn about shapes and forms!! hence my attempt to disprove his theory. Pumpkins. im assuming that u mean atoms!?? We cant see atoms so how can we judge things on that basis (if this is what u mean)
No!!! Noone has ever seen one. It is assumed that they are spehrical but noone knows. They arent split with a knife u know pumpkins! They are split with chemical (chain) reactions. Its not quite the same. Anyway. We definitley cant see them with the naked eye so how is this related to forms??
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! can you please rephrase this...i am not quite sure what you mean. thanks. then, i will be happy to discuss this oh-so-Parmenides-like topic... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
how are atoms related to our perception/experience (think both are true) of forms. If we could see atoms then yeah, it would matter what the atom i.e. a sperical shape meant to the original but as we cant, the only thing that occurs to us is the larger shape i.e. the shape that many many atoms make up e.g. a letter of the alphabet on a page. BTW. What (who?) is Parmenides???
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/parmenid.htm this link can explain him a bit better than i ever could hope to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! he's my kinda man...a peom writin', heavy-thinker extrodinaire...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
pete just consider that no object (and, that includes atoms) is greater or less than the sum of its parts. if you break an atom down into its constituent parts, it can then, theoretically be resassembled..you know? of course you do.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And what does this prove pumpkinsarentorange?? :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW. can i just take this moment while a philosopher has come up to say that i recently found out why hermaphrodites are called what they are. Apparently the famous greek philosophers hermes and aphrodites were part man and part woman!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! never knew that. interesting stuff. anyone else heard that?
ok.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i'm back. anyways, by the looks of things, ..yeah, now i do see why you were questioning that above statement of mine...i see i put it in the wrong thread...i meant to stick it in my Atomism thread and..i musta screwed-up and stuck it in this one instead.. er....can we say "screwed-up"?? on this board...hmmm.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! anyways...i've been thinking...(uh oh:bugeye: ) ya know...the mind is in a totally different catagory than the body....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ok..no, seriously...i have decided that rationalism and empiricism (descartes<--i like that guy a lotPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) and bacon) should be considered complementary to each other rather than hopelessly conflicting like that currently are. ok. end of think-rant.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and, pete....just a quick question...isn't "formulism" just another word to describe atomism ?? what's your opinion..
