I can't help but think the Cynics and Stoics were chasing a feeling, a sublime ease. Their arguments were just a ladder to this feeling.
As always, opinions.
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) (6.54) L. Wittgenstein
...the conceptions of literature as game and as action merge in another form of metaphoric silence: literary obscenity. The term is notoriously difficult to define except by court action; I use it here to refer mainly to works that connect obscenity with protest. It is easy to understand that culture is given to sexual repression, protest may take the form , echo the ring, of obscenity. Obscenity however is cruely reductive; its terms counters, and cliches are sharply limited. When the anger behind it is chilled obscenity appears as a game of permutations, relying on few words and fewer actions...(and so on...)
Music, paintings, and literature (the arts in general) create a feeling in a person that can't be adequately described in words. Philosophy tells us whether that feeling is BS or not; whether the injustice we feel so strongly is actually injustice.
They are very complementary.
I agree that they are complementary, but not that philosophy can declare an emotional response BS. For me, philosophy is itself largely mythological. It's name refers to the wife of God.
It's not so much declaring the response BS. The response is obviously genuine. But you might have a "that's unjust" response to something that actually is justified, based on the way it is presented (the music, camera angle, lighting, words used, etc). Similar to how a lawyer's rhetoric, a politicians speech, and a advertisements tone. Although, art is usually not intended to deceive. But the very fact that it expresses something that can't be described in words makes it difficult to assess it's implications with reason. This is what some people use to downplay the importance of reason. I think it works both ways though.
I feel you. I don't want to downplay the importance of reason. I suppose I just want reason to be aware of its unreasonable shadow, in order to become more reasonable.
What is reason if not a systematic mental model of the whole, by which I mean the world and the self. Of course "world" and "self" are just two of the many useful distinctions that reason offers us.
I agree that feeling alone leads only to chaos. I aim at the development of both, which is of course a common enough goal. Didn't Plato stress the importance of music in the Republic?