3 ms·

> Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not. You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of th

• slibhb 6y ago
  > You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of the world in some particular and unique fashion, and rendered static in its place and time. Chairs are "born" when someone makes a chair. Chairs are objects created by people for the purpose of sitting on. Natural objects may have a purpose too. The purpose of a seed is to germinate. The purpose of a fruit is to be eaten (it evolved to be edible so it would be eaten). The purpose of a wing is to help a bird fly. > What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be. I would call it a tree and a chair. But it wasn't a chair until someone did a lot of work to make it one. Similarly, a rock can be a chair if someone sculpts it into a chair. > What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing. Categorization is inherently valuable and necessary. Words are categories. We cannot talk or think without making categories. If you believe talking and thinking are bad or futile then stop doing those things. You can argue that we should continue making categories but we should stop questioning them, i.e. stop philosophizing. This is essentially a conservative argument because it forecloses on questioning whatever traditions and cultural attitudes we have. But it is a valid perspective and quite old. > You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction I'm not talking about skill, or not only. I'm saying that it is the view of art as a mysterious, undefiniable thing that nevertheless should be pursued that results in art that lasts forever. Your view of art results in people hanging toilets on the wall.