REASON, ART AND
PHILOSOPHY - THE EMPIRICAL ORIGIN OF IMPERIALISM
For some reason art and philosophy stay undefined and the reason for
that is...?
Reason is a tool of compliance (complacency) and as such it is improper
as a tool of decision. Decision means science, because of the "cutting"
essence of the concept (scire).
Despite this, for political reasons, the Age of Reason was synonymized with the
Age of Science, reason being enthroned as the analytical tool par excellence -
a meta-fact that will be demystified here.
I should have added "political" before "tool of
compliance". Being authoritarian, the politics needs permanent self
approval and any resistance is futile - that is the nature of authority. It is,
by the way, the nature of all things, the main survival drive and is the very
thing responsible for the "war among all", as Heraclites once
observed. Heraclites was a pre-Socratic philosopher who clearly understood the
necessity of being authoritarian as an author and his philosophy is known as
the art of statements, for statement cuts off the need for discourse (i.e.
criticism).
I am playing here with words, but it makes a lot of sense, actually. The
question remains, as Pilatus blundered in the New Testament: What is truth? Anyone can play authoritarian. And so
what's the big deal!
Seems that truth belongs to the stronger, however, it is so only if the
philosophy is in function of justifying imposition of truth as the law.
Otherwise, truth has no pretense of projecting itself over the untrue. The
reason for this is truth being originally outside the domain of speculation
(arbitrariness). That is - by definition. Truth is absolute (authority),
however, the only place authority is not challenged is outside the realm of
reactivity (the realm of permanent war).
Lets make a small digression. The intent to write this article was to
prove something - that is authoritarian. At the same time I don't want to prove
something which can be challenged. That is scientific, for I aim for undeniable
proof. What exactly is a tool which will consume all possible doubts and
challenges and thus reach the state of absoluteness?
Logic is often used as proving tool, but it can easily be challenged for
logic is based on axioms, which cannot be confirmed as true, they need to be
accepted consensually. Which is arbitrary and as such - untrue. Actually,
beyond domain of truth.
On the other hand, logic is a perfected reason. That's all reason can
be: logical, reasonable (self confirming).
Perfection is censorship. This is a statement, and you are welcome to
destroy it if you can. But you can't. Logic only functions if it discriminates.
Logic discriminates and selects complacent elements, from which then the
arrangement is made. Therefore, logical (reasonable) truth is selected versus
discarded, discriminated quality. In this sense, reason is the same as
perception (the senses) which function in the same manner - by discriminating.
Eye discriminates intensity of light and various frequencies as color. Same
with other senses. This gives us the picture of the world, it is the world.
Now, lets question truthfulness of this.
Empiricism fails to address personal experience. It will continue to
look for explanations which are based on observations; thus it ends up
describing (confirming) itself (creating tautologies). God confirms the King.
Contrary to the belief that careful description of the observed leads to
truth, art and philosophy aim at insight (intuition). However, art will not
bother itself with commenting, it will simply emphasize the absurd, thus
creating a metaphysical (opposed to empirical) machine which reason will
proclaim "meaningless" for its lack of logical "connection"
- by doing so reason falls into its own mouth (will never admit that though).
Contrary to art, philosophy will aim for precise definition by analyzing
the absurd - which can never be the object of reason. The effect is the same:
both art and philosophy end up deconstructing the logic. Reason is thus left
outside their realm as delusional.
Historically, the Age of Reason separated science from philosophy, and
by doing so ends up claiming that mathematical truths can produce reality even
if there is no empirical proof (Higgs boson), or that there are "gravity
waves emanating from the imaginary point of Big Bang". Just how did it
happen that mathematics became a "sense"?
Reason systematically confuses engineering (manipulation) with science
(analysis). Philosophy would never allow that, so philosophy was ousted by the
inquisition (time mark: Galileo Galilei), for authority of arbitrary rule
tolerates no criticism. It can move but it cannot question!
The Age of Reason dealt with art in a specific way: it never questioned
its importance directly, indirectly it used art's own nature (the abstract) to treat
it as a raw resource which must be distilled before usage. Thus, the auxiliary
elements of art, like decorativeness, spectacularity or simple cuteness were
emphasized due to marketability; but the essence of art would be left alone for
it can not be perceived by empirical mind.
Andy Warhol nailed the last nail introducing consumability as pragmatical
value of art (rediscovering America) promoting blue collars and suits into
authentic consumers of art.
Big win for Reason for it never stops marketing itself.
Posts
