Wed 31 Aug, 2011 03:57 pm
I'm not a "pro" philosopher, but I was thinking about this and wanted some other opinions. Help me out?
First, some arguments for determinism:
If things transpire and exist exactly in the way they transpire and exist (which they do, according to the Law of identity.), then regardless of whether or not it is feasible for them to transpire a different way or exist as something else (including non-existance), the only way they can or could transpire or exist is as they do.
If things are determined to be determined, then they are determined; if they are determined to be free, then they are still determined. It’s inescapable.
From an Aristotelian perspective, science is concerned with necessary truths, and art is concerned with contingent truths.
But, if we accept determinism as true, then there are no contingent truths, only necessary ones. This would leave nothing with which art could concern itself, and only necessary truths, meaning that anything concerned with anything is concerned with only necessary truths, making everything a science.
Now, I would draw the conclusion that art does not exist, only science, but there are examples which prove that science and art are not mutually exclusive. Logic, for example, is considered both a liberal art and a normative science.
So, does art exist as it’s own field, or is there only science? Without free will, what is the purpose of art? Is there one?
Science seems to me the observation, and fact recording of a "thing" to be studied from an emotional distance. Art is fueled by the spirit, a passionate creative endeavor that speaks the soul's inspiration.
Art can exist in its own field, if you like; art can also not exist if you like.
Anne Frank still let out her (he)art as her free will was taken hostage. What purpose do you think it served her?
I have no idea what this determinism is about, but it seems extremely irrelevant and navel gazing.