4 ms·

My personal definition (Coming from a more philosophy discipline. Art is aesthetics with elements of intellect - Science is an intellectual pursuit which can

My personal definition (Coming from a more philosophy discipline. Art is aesthetics with elements of intellect - Science is an intellectual pursuit which can contain beauty. https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/30/1/24/160514?redirectedFrom=PDF https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article-abstract/30/1/...

rusk 8y ago
For me, science goes back to the root of the word. It originally goes back to the scalpel, which was used to divide living tissue from dead tissue. That which is objective vs that which is subjective. Also, I wouldn't confine art to the purely aesthetic. But that's just me!
- baldfat 8y ago
  > Art is aesthetics with elements of intellect
  - rusk 8y ago
    That's too narrow a definition for me, sorry.
- qbrass 8y ago
  >For me, science goes back to the root of the word. It originally goes back to the scalpel, which was used to divide living tissue from dead tissue. That which is objective vs that which is subjective. The word "shit" has the same origin, btw.
  - rusk 8y ago
    Yes, in German it’s more closely resembling as scheisse It’s also present in “Schism”
    - rusk 8y ago
      And slice
gglitch 8y ago
I like science as the orientation toward the creation of knowledge and art as the orientation toward the creation of affects [0]. [0] OED 5b: "A feeling or subjective experience accompanying a thought or action or occurring in response to a stimulus; an emotion, a mood."
- rusk 8y ago
  Your understanding is more in line with OP You must get a twinge of dissonance whenever people mention Knuth. If dictionaries were the arbiters of all knowledge we wouldn’t need encyclopaedias /s
  - gglitch 8y ago
    I think I know why you say that, but I didn't communicate that something can't be equally oriented toward both knowledge and affect; in fact I'd say that's exactly what people are experiencing when they characterize a theorem, equation, proof, or algorithm as "elegant." And I'm not calling the OED an "arbiter of all knowledge," I'm merely making sure my eccentric use of "affect," isn't being taken as a mistaken "effect."
    - rusk 8y ago
      Couldn’t you have just said emotion then? I mean perhaps you would lose some precision but if you have to use a dictionary maybe that precision is lost anyway?

rusk 8y ago

For me, science goes back to the root of the word. It originally goes back to the scalpel, which was used to divide living tissue from dead tissue. That which is objective vs that which is subjective. Also, I wouldn't confine art to the purely aesthetic. But that's just me!

baldfat 8y ago
> Art is aesthetics with elements of intellect
- rusk 8y ago
  That's too narrow a definition for me, sorry.
qbrass 8y ago
>For me, science goes back to the root of the word. It originally goes back to the scalpel, which was used to divide living tissue from dead tissue. That which is objective vs that which is subjective. The word "shit" has the same origin, btw.
- rusk 8y ago
  Yes, in German it’s more closely resembling as scheisse It’s also present in “Schism”
  - rusk 8y ago
    And slice

gglitch 8y ago

I like science as the orientation toward the creation of knowledge and art as the orientation toward the creation of affects [0]. [0] OED 5b: "A feeling or subjective experience accompanying a thought or action or occurring in response to a stimulus; an emotion, a mood."

rusk 8y ago
Your understanding is more in line with OP You must get a twinge of dissonance whenever people mention Knuth. If dictionaries were the arbiters of all knowledge we wouldn’t need encyclopaedias /s
- gglitch 8y ago
  I think I know why you say that, but I didn't communicate that something can't be equally oriented toward both knowledge and affect; in fact I'd say that's exactly what people are experiencing when they characterize a theorem, equation, proof, or algorithm as "elegant." And I'm not calling the OED an "arbiter of all knowledge," I'm merely making sure my eccentric use of "affect," isn't being taken as a mistaken "effect."
  - rusk 8y ago
    Couldn’t you have just said emotion then? I mean perhaps you would lose some precision but if you have to use a dictionary maybe that precision is lost anyway?