Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Today we know three ways of mastering the world by man. First, it is a science in which a person learns the world through experience. Based on experience, patterns are outlined at a rational level, hypotheses are created, and theories are built. Secondly, it is an art in which the world is known through images. They are even called specifically “artistic images”, so as not to be confused with other categories of images that are also used by the human consciousness. Emotional cognition prevails here. Third, it is a religion in which a person also relies on experience, but not on mass experience, but only on the experience of the most authoritative people in their field. It is clear that these three methods of cognition are closely intertwined with each other in human cognitive activity.
In certain periods of the development of human society, any one of the ways of cognition turned out to be a priority. For a long time, it was religion, and faith in authorities played a major role in the system of teaching and understanding the world (“scriptures and traditions are the criterion of truth”). Then came the time of science, with its demand to test everything through mass activity (“practice is the criterion of truth”). Art in the age of science exists only as an auxiliary method of cognition (“beauty is the criterion of truth”). However, if you look closely at all three criteria of truth, it becomes clear that they only complement each other. A person with unbiased views relies on practice, testing it through authorities and through its correlation with the standards of beauty. What is true must be repeated frequently, be certified by authorities, and be simply beautiful.
Since the epoch of art (the priority role of art in the system of cognition) if it has not yet arrived, then beauty as a criterion of truth seems to many to be nonsense. After all, today we are talking about the subjectivity of beauty (it depends on the era, the people with their culture, the social stratum, the personality of an individual). But as this time approaches, people will become more and more aware that the conversation is about superhuman beauty, which is based on harmony. It is an expression of the balance of all the components of the world. People will increasingly understand that it is precisely this balance in all its manifestations that is the ideal goal for the development of both an individual subject and the whole of humanity.
But the goal is perfect. Complete equilibrium will stop all development. This is why the world is constantly fluctuating between harmony and chaos (which is also a great example of harmony, but of a different kind). On this middle path, religion helps you master the past, science (and the technology it creates) the present, and art the future. Remove the authorities today, and the past will gradually disappear. Remove the art, and the future will only be a continuation of the chain of logical conclusions.
There are things that are valuable in themselves, and there are those that are valuable only indirectly.�
Ethics and aesthetics are among the former, while technology is among the latter. That is, it is only as good as it brings us closer to our ethical or aesthetic ideals.
Of course, you can say that technology itself is valuable, but at this very moment, technology will become aesthetic. Or ethical, there are possible options.
But since ethics are essentially aesthetics in behavior, there is no difference. So it turns out that aesthetics are eternal, but technological efficiency is not.
From my point of view, there is a certain division in the question in a hidden form. But is this really the case? The interaction of people with the surrounding worlds has always been developed on two planes: practical-applied and reflexive-speculative. “Technologicality” is a product of practically applied interaction; “aesthetics” as an integral element of philosophy is reflexive and speculative. At all times and epochs, they have been and remain inseparable. Technologicality is based on scientific rationalism, which has its roots in the branches of philosophy: ontology, epistemology, and logic; it also includes ethics and aesthetics.
This structure of philosophy was formed not by chance, but as a result of understanding the totality of human life. The ontological dichotomy: material/ideal; the epistemological problem of objective and subjective knowledge also required the development of both ethical and aesthetic criteria, sometimes developed “heuristically” or rationally-logically.
Your “juxtaposition” indicates only a certain social crisis of existence and its understanding; social tension manifests itself in social disharmony. But don't technologies, in their pursuit of consumers, exploit” prettiness ” and try to distance it from ethical criteria?
Ethics, in its practically applied hypostasis of religious cults, constantly turned to the ” denial of beauty outside the religious ideal.”
Compared to religion, the relatively recently formed institute of science and its practical-applied hypostasis of technology are much more “tied” to aesthetics: ergonomics and eco-technologies, the same techno-design or hi-tech style. To what extent the principles of aesthetics can be decisive for technology is another question. Technologies are implemented on the basis of objective-rational grounds rather than speculative ones. Gradually, a certain triad should be developed for technologies: rationalism-ethics–aesthetics. Will it be a perfect harmony and symphony of being?