I believe we are parsing words at this point, but how is a desired reaction equivalent to winning? Winning pertains to a binary outcome, either it will happen, or it will not happen. If, for example, I ask you to lend me $50, it’s not a simple win or lose scenario. You could decide to borrow me half of the desired money; one-third of the desired money; half of the money now, and half later; one-fourth of the money, at interest. In either case, there is a multitude of outcomes, so we cannot clearly state one side has won or lost. If my intentions were to deceive you, and I was highly successful in my pursuit, you may decide to borrow me double the amount that I requested, simply out of compassion or empathy. Is that classified as a double win?
I have no intentions of continued bickering, we, obviously, have a difference of opinions, and neither side seems willing to concede any ground. You are correct in stating that the idea matters, and not the way it is presented; however, if it is presented in an unintelligible way, the idea may get distorted (remember this).
I am always willing to listen and learn from the opinions of others, but insofar as they present their ideas in a respectful manner. I am no fan of your previous insults, but I am willing to let bygones be bygones, and leave it at that. I think we can both agree, that we have better things to do with our time than to incessantly argue over trivial matters, such as this.
In my response to your original post, I pointed out that Pathos referred specifically to pity and sorrow. You refused to acknowledge this fact and moved on to explaining the difference between artistic proofs and inartistic proofs.
If an artistic-proof needs to be “invented,” through the use of persuasion (which is, more or less, a means of coaxing, or, manipulating someone into believing a certain argument), then how does this not apply to my original statement of labeling art as a deception? If I deceive you into believing my position, haven’t I provoked you into a “desired” reaction. Have I not been “artful?”
Your continued use of — watch out, big word incoming — ad hominem attacks do you no favors, as it illuminates your overt attempts of “embarrassing” me, rather than having an actual discussion. Furthermore, your attempts to restrict the discourse by not allowing “bullshit quotes,” when you yourself quote Aristotle is laughably absurd.
Here’s a suggestion (and I’m being serious): learn to write in an intelligible manner, avoid the profanity, and have an open-mind for others ideas. You initiated this discussion with a malicious intent, as you admitted you didn’t read my entire review, then proceeded to label me as a “pseudo-intellectual” without properly disarming my claim that art is a deception. You can call me whatever you like, it does nothing to “win” the argument.
Well, to be fair, the word “art” does serve as the root for the term “artifice;” which is defined as a form of deception or trickery. So, yes, the artist(s) performs a cunning subterfuge, of sorts, to — in your words — “manipulate the public” for purposes of their own self-aggrandizement. In fact, Vladimir Nabokov, a Russian-American novelist, acknowledges this fact numerous times in his various works:
“. . . Every work of art is a deception. Oh, yes, I was the pure artist of romance.”
“Art is a magical deception, as all nature is magic and deception. To speak of a ‘sincere’ poem or picture is about the same thing as to call ‘sincere’ a bird’s mating dance or a caterpillar’s mimetic behavior.”
I used the word “art” in my review, because of its all encompassing nature. Pathos, one of the three modes of persuasion, specifically refers to the emotions of pity or sorrow. Along with Ethos (credibility or character) and Logos (logic or reason), these terms are referred to as the three ARTISTIC PROOFS!
Perhaps defining art is as unavailing as assigning a numerical score to an animated series. I will grant you this — but everything else you said was complete rubbish, exposing your overt foolishness.
All Comments (4) Comments
I have no intentions of continued bickering, we, obviously, have a difference of opinions, and neither side seems willing to concede any ground. You are correct in stating that the idea matters, and not the way it is presented; however, if it is presented in an unintelligible way, the idea may get distorted (remember this).
I am always willing to listen and learn from the opinions of others, but insofar as they present their ideas in a respectful manner. I am no fan of your previous insults, but I am willing to let bygones be bygones, and leave it at that. I think we can both agree, that we have better things to do with our time than to incessantly argue over trivial matters, such as this.
If an artistic-proof needs to be “invented,” through the use of persuasion (which is, more or less, a means of coaxing, or, manipulating someone into believing a certain argument), then how does this not apply to my original statement of labeling art as a deception? If I deceive you into believing my position, haven’t I provoked you into a “desired” reaction. Have I not been “artful?”
Your continued use of — watch out, big word incoming — ad hominem attacks do you no favors, as it illuminates your overt attempts of “embarrassing” me, rather than having an actual discussion. Furthermore, your attempts to restrict the discourse by not allowing “bullshit quotes,” when you yourself quote Aristotle is laughably absurd.
Here’s a suggestion (and I’m being serious): learn to write in an intelligible manner, avoid the profanity, and have an open-mind for others ideas. You initiated this discussion with a malicious intent, as you admitted you didn’t read my entire review, then proceeded to label me as a “pseudo-intellectual” without properly disarming my claim that art is a deception. You can call me whatever you like, it does nothing to “win” the argument.
A short list of Aristotle’s beliefs:
-Believed in a geocentric universe
-Heart was the center of intelligence
-Brain cooled the heart
-Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects
The man made significant contributions, in several areas of study, but much of what he said is completely useless in today’s modern society.
By the way, nothing you said refutes my claim that art is a deception or a means to provoke a reaction from others.
“. . . Every work of art is a deception. Oh, yes, I was the pure artist of romance.”
“Art is a magical deception, as all nature is magic and deception. To speak of a ‘sincere’ poem or picture is about the same thing as to call ‘sincere’ a bird’s mating dance or a caterpillar’s mimetic behavior.”
I used the word “art” in my review, because of its all encompassing nature. Pathos, one of the three modes of persuasion, specifically refers to the emotions of pity or sorrow. Along with Ethos (credibility or character) and Logos (logic or reason), these terms are referred to as the three ARTISTIC PROOFS!
Perhaps defining art is as unavailing as assigning a numerical score to an animated series. I will grant you this — but everything else you said was complete rubbish, exposing your overt foolishness.