aesthetics

[Free Radical]

now that i have a meaningful connection to nature or spirit or wtfever you want to call it, i feel like my life is entirely about aesthetics.....

let me back up. i've read a decent amount of philosophy and sort of wish i'd had the courage to ignore other people's plans for my life and major in it. my main proposition at the moment is that the use-value of anything is determined by how well it protects that which i find aesthetically pleasing. don't misread that as simple egoism--altruism and self-sacrifice are beautiful and necessary features of our existence. self-denial can be as stupid as self-sacrifice depending on the circumstances.

thoughts?

 

[panic in paradise]

if you believe the main proposition of your post to be true, Free Radical, maybe look at yourself more closely

 

[panic in paradise]

now that i have a meaningful connection to nature or spirit or wtfever you want to call it, i feel like my life is entirely about aesthetics.....

let me back up. i've read a decent amount of philosophy and sort of wish i'd had the courage to ignore other people's plans for my life and major in it. my main proposition at the moment is that the use-value of anything is determined by how well it protects that which i find aesthetically pleasing. don't misread that as simple egoism--altruism and self-sacrifice are beautiful and necessary features of our existence. self-denial can be as stupid as self-sacrifice depending on the circumstances.

thoughts?

God is who assumes totally responsiblity of all that has been created, for He or She is the Creator ?

 

[azzazza !?]

well i can't really tell much going on what you posted, but such a position can indeed be fruitful. as far as i can tell, you seem to be reasoning within the traditional Platonic trinity of Truth, Good and Beauty. herein the Good takes the central position, while Truth and Beauty revolve around it as 'expression' of the Good. this is because only the Good can be good in itself, while truth for the sake of truth, or beauty for the sake of beauty are susceptible to derailment. only good, for the sake of good is always Good, and as such, it centers the two other. but, just by itself, it is characterized by a kind of 'emptiness' that isn't really empty. but this we can only derive from its 'overflowing from within itself' into its aspects Truth and Beauty, which define what is Good, and vice versa, the Good defining (limiting) Truth and Beauty from its excesses. hence it being a trinity or triunity.

 

[Free Radical]

well i can't really tell much going on what you posted, but such a position can indeed be fruitful. as far as i can tell, you seem to be reasoning within the traditional Platonic trinity of Truth, Good and Beauty. herein the Good takes the central position, while Truth and Beauty revolve around it as 'expression' of the Good. this is because only the Good can be good in itself, while truth for the sake of truth, or beauty for the sake of beauty are susceptible to derailment. only good, for the sake of good is always Good, and as such, it centers the two other. but, just by itself, it is characterized by a kind of 'emptiness' that isn't really empty. but this we can only derive from its 'overflowing from within itself' into its aspects Truth and Beauty, which define what is Good, and vice versa, the Good defining (limiting) Truth and Beauty from its excesses. hence it being a trinity or triunity.

WOW thank you for that :D