Questioning Egalitarianism

This will be a short post. I am very busy studying for certain things relative to my education. This post will question on of the principle components of Egalitarianism: that every person is entitled to equal opportunity. This view is a very westren-specific one, and is derived from similar views, such as: Autonomy, equal-rights, or free will. However, can we really hold a rational belief that people can really have equal opportunity?

The majority of human existence has been filled with suffering and strife, so how are we to hold that there really is equal opportunity when some of those that suffer choose not to suffer - and those who do not suffer have some how evaded the quintessential situation that haunts society?

Many may feel the temptation to respond by way of an appeal to some type of belief that we have "access" to the same "ability" to make life what it is. BUt this is completely false; can we really say that there are those who actually have access to the same ability that I have or you? And more so, what about those that have even more "access" than I or you? It seems that to respond in this way would be obviously a mistake.

Perhaps, we could hold that we were all "endowed" with certain unalienable rights and that among those are the equal chance to success relative to each person. But, if the former is true, then are we to say that the children born in Africa and suffer immensely have had their rights violated? And if so, then by whom? Maybe, God? - however that does not seem right, we wont blame that on him (even though some might). So, is it the REST of humanity that has violated the rights of this child by not aiding it to have the same opportunity or same situations that are some of us possess that are necessary to the correct perpetuation of one's ability to obtain the correct state of affairs to create "opportunity?"

So, what is it? What is it that make some feel that we are indeed equal? What makes us want to assert something that is obviously not the case?

Just some simple questions,
J.R.P

Philosophy

Kripke's Puzzle

To proceed, let us first list in detail what compromises Kripke’s Puzzle. Consider Pierre, a native French speaker that does not speak a word of English or any other language, one-day hears or considers the city of London. Upon considering this famous city, he utters the statement, in French, “Londres est jolie.” The translation of this utterance is, to some extent, London is beautiful. Following the Pierre’s utterance, we are able to conclude via the Disquotational Principle (which holds that: If a normal English speaker, on reflection, sincerely assents to ‘p’, then he believes that p) that Pierre believes that London is beautiful. So,
(1) Pierre believes that London is pretty.
Latter in Pierre’s life, he decides to relocate to London, and during some unspecified amount of time he learns English by way of “direct method”. However, upon moving to London, he is unfortunately placed in a part of London that is less than admirable. Pierre is then inclined to make the statement that:
(2) London is not pretty.
And as Kripke points out: he is under no inclination to assent to:
(3) London is pretty.
Suppose further, that Pierre is under no immediate inclination to abandon or revise his former beliefs that he held in France about the city that he knew as ‘Londres.’ From this we arrive at the folcum of Kripke’s puzzle. Kripke states that,
If we consider Pierre’s past back ground as a French speaker, his entire linguist behavior, on the same basis as we would draw such a conclusion about many of his countrymen, supports the conclusion ([1] above) that he believes that London is pretty… but then on the basis of his sincere assent to ([2]), we should conclude:
([4]) Pierre believes that London is not pretty.
How can we describe this situation? It seems undeniable that Pierre once believed that London is pretty – at least before he learnt English. For at that time, he differed not at all from countless numbers of his countrymen, and we would have exactly the same grounds to say of him… [However] it [now] seems that we must respect both Pierre’s French utterances and their English counterparts. So, we want to say that Pierre has contradictory beliefs (emphasis mine).
So, to reiterate the basic aspects of the puzzle deals with the idea that we have two contradictory utterances –in different languages- of X, and that via the Disquotation Principle, it follows that if those utterances were sincerely assented to, then the person P must believe X. If the prior is the case then P must possess contradictory beliefs.

I don't know what to make of this. Upon first glance, it compels me to hold Pierre to the fact that he seems to have contradictory beliefs. And at times, it makes me hold him to the fact that Pierre is just irrational. I think that there is a response to Kripke. Consider my solution:
Let us again suppose that at T1 Pierre holds x, and at T2 he holds ~x; but at T2 Pierre holds both x and ~x. That is to say that the properties that composed x at T1 hold relative to T1, or that x is “rigidly” fixed to T1. This means that there is some property or set of properties that composed x and that those properties are fixed to the states of affairs that were actualized at T1. So, even if he holds ~x at T2, he can still hold x relative to the states of affairs at T1 –and ~x is able to also hold for the states of affairs at T2.
This seems to work for Pierre, and we would hold that he just thinks that from one perspective London is beautiful and from another it is not.

I "might" wright more about this someday...
Best,
J.R.P

"Higher" Education and America's Future

In the USA we have fallen behind in the number of students who finish their proposed collage major. We also have the fourth lowest collage participation among competitive countries. Additionally, there seems to be a growing anomaly that has self-perpetuated since the late 1980s -that anomaly is what type of collage majors are actually graduating and entering society. The vast majority of collage graduates are located primarily in the discipline of Business (marketing, financing, accounting, and economics). Nevertheless, the USA -and much of the world- has seen a large slow-down in certain technological advances compared to prior decades. Additionally, we have seen a change in the total world population being considered in a state of "extreme" poverty, which has increased slightly since 1990 - but also there has been a jump in the number of people who are impoverished. Finally, there have been more economic problems since 1980 to 2008 than in the last 110 years combined! Who are we to thank? Is it not true that our society and its functioning depends on the younger generation which educates itself to become the leader? Yes, but why all the problems? One of the reasons for the problems we are experiencing, is the sever polarization of higher-education toward business majors and business related majors.
Why is such polarization bad? This answer is quite simple; as we progress toward one side of the spectrum of education we experience a imbalance of the collective and progressive thought of society, which also leads to less people (especially intelligent and productive people) participating in studies that could produce great beneficial discoveries for mankind. Nevertheless, those people have opted-out and have joined the dark and greed infested world of the merchants, and thus, we have seen a incredible -and unjustifiable- growth in world economies. This augmented growth in business majors is relative to other aspects (I am aware of this), but it has been principally generated by this idea that "business is the only way to go to make money." Of course I am aware that we must make "money" to survive -but do we make money to enrich our selves, to help others, or to use resources unnecessarily?
As I had noted earlier, there has been a reduction in extreme poverty in the recent ten years, but there has been an increase in poverty. This increase in poverty is partially due to the proliferation of large companies into third-world nations that take UNFAIR advantage of the lives of some of the desperate populations. Some may hold that such companies are doing a favor, and that the proliferation of business majors has lead to the increase from Poverty X to Poverty Y (Y being somewhat better than X). This is not a valid argument. The number of impoverished people has risen disproportionally to the amount that has left extreme poverty, so that means that some people have actually lost economic status.
Moreover, we have personally witnessed what happens to world economies when you let some ignorant money-savvy chump sit behind a desk and make millions of dollars a year by only knowing how to manage some company. Those men -and their greed- have caused a down fall of many american and human lives. This is unacceptable!
We have also seen a decline in human morality/ethics. It has been reported that white collar and 'simple' crimes have increased 20% in the last decade on a world-wide scale!
Now, all you economic majors should be aware of these states -after all you are a "Social Science" rigt? Yes, you are, but what has happened is that one of the most solid social studies has degenerated into the field of business. You see businessmen are cunning, and they know that economic majors should have some knowledge of how things move in society. Since their product deals with society it is logical to higher them -right? (By the way, I don't actually believe that many businessmen are logical)
The problem is that economics has taken its rank with finance guys, marketing people, and the exploitative sales jerks. Many economic majors that I speak to don't know @#!! about @#!! This is sad, and is the result of people thinking they can get a degree and go work for some major financial investment bank or firm and become rich! What good will that do, I ask? Going and sitting behind a desk making far more money than many of the worlds people, at the cost of the workers of society? Is that ethical?
So, I guess you could say that I shame you business majors. I shame what you have done to society, and you completely wastefulness. I also spit upon your misconceived notion that -if I am a businesses degree-holder, I will some day have my big company that makes me lots of money- in realty the majority of you guys run companies for guys that never went to school or studied something else.
We need, as a nation, revert back to the basics, the classics. Things that will allow us to survive are: Science, mathematics, physics, philosophy, sociology, engineering, chemistry and the like.

To bad that human egoism is so prevalent... God bless america.
J.R.P

P.S.
It is important to note that universities are, traditionally, the place of "higher-learning," and that should and would not usually include business studies; so, I think that we should just put all business studies in junior colleges or tec-schools (oops again.. they already do).
Here are some sources.
1) Major stats.
2) Major state 2
3) Poverty

Obama and Compulsory service?

Obama has proposed that there should be a type of "civil service" imposed upon the youth of america. I personally think that some aspects of this are great; except for the compulsory requirements that it might have to demand. Bellow is a copy of what certain members of his future cabinet aims to propose. You can read it here.

"We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."

- First I would like to know what all of you think about this type of establishment, but before concluding, let me explain to you how this is a standard socialist conception. Most socialist feel that this is something that is beneficial to the society at large. Now, if being subject to a large and powefrul government is good, then I guess they are right. Also, how can they pass this reform with the following "wall" in there way (and I am not talking about the GOP minority). 

Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

The former is from the thirteenth amendment, which I like to call the freedom amendment. This amendment seems to prevent any type of compulsory service or obligation that may be imposed upon its people.

Thanks,

J.R.P

And here's to change!

The Disquotational Principle

I am preparing on writing a paper on Kripke and his essay, A Puzzle About Belief. In this Puzzle he raises (this is off the top of my head, so if I am wrong then forgive me) some problems about How we hold certain linguistically statements and how they associate with one's beliefs.  So, consider one of his puzzles

There is a man named Pierre, and Pierre learns that Skaowsky  is a famous polish pianist. He also learns that Skaowsky refers to a famous politician. Now, Pierre believes that no politician can produce good music, and thus, since Skaowsky is a politician he therefor cannot be a great pianist. 

This argument depends upon something called "the Disquotational Principle." This principle holds:

If S means P and a speaker understands and sincerely accepts (assents) to S, the the speaker believes P. 

DO ANY OF YOU THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPLE IS VALID? HOW WOULD ADJUST IT?

Mormon Church and Pro 8

There was recently "news-speak" about members of the LDS church leaving their position and affiliation with this church because of its opposition to gay marriages. You can read about it here.

I would like to speak out against those members who are leaving the LDS church and criticize them for their complete disregard for their former faith's positions and the knowledge that they should have possessed if they had previously even considered themselves members. The LDS church -to my understanding- has always opposed gay marriages and homosexuality in  all of its forms. It has been on record about describing such actions as, "contrary to God's plan" and as, " an abomination." So, why, first, would any member leave his or her church for the reason that their church decided not to change its mind in accordance with that particular member's view?

I think that any one person who feel that some religious institution, especially one that propounds the view that they are the true church - as the Mormon church does- should never have become member as per their faith was vain.  Moreover, if such an institution is true and of God, then should it change? Should God change his views on gay marriage? Perhaps, those mormon members of whom felt that they could not associate themselves with such a church should take a long walk and think about themselves and maybe read the Bible and see what will be the inevitable end to such supporters of evil. 

It is ridiculous that any member would leave their faith for such a trivial and stupid thing. Don't they know that since the beginning of the Bible and most organized religion, for that matter, have opposed Gay activities of all sorts? Don't they know that in the end, the Bible holds that such people will be burned as stubble? 

I admire the valor and strength of the LDS chruch to keep true to their word and doctrine. This shows that they are not another wishy-washy and fly-by-night non-denominational church that feels that they can adapt their doctrine to allow for they gay community to be accepted - or should I say, that they adapt to keep the offering basket full...

Anyway, shame on those ex-members, and I hope that some of them read this, shame on your lack of investigative capabilities, and I think that the LDS church is better off without your weakness; especially, since the purpose of the gospel is to cleanse the earth from all evil though the blood of the lamb, and getting rid of those week links is part of that.

Best, 

J.R.P

Homosexual Marriage Rights- a Possible Slippery Slope?

Recently it was found that Proposition 8 was verified and the ability for homosexual couples to get married in California is now not possible -from a legal aspect. However, there is much debate that is continuing to grow. There have been several appeals that have been made that hold that this (prop. 8) is a violation of civil rights and equal protection under the law. It has been argued that if gay marriages are not approved we will have negated some group of individuals some inherited unalienable right that they possess. I think that the equal protection argument is contained in the civil rights argument, so I will just set my sights on the civil argument for the time being. There is a serious issue here, and I have noticed that, not only from an academic perspective, but also a practical one, when you begin to say, "I am opposed to gay marrages" you are dubbed a Bigot or a "gay hater". I think this is wrong on several grounds, but the proponets of gay "rights" must answer some of my questions if they are to be able to hold that some group X has some type of civil right that some similar group Y cannot have. An example is polygamy. Should we allow polygamy? Many proponets of homosexuality claim that we should not! But why? Is it because there are some set of rights R that are possessed by gays and not heterosexual couples that wish to engage in polygamous relationships? And if so, what are they? Moreover, (here is where it gets slippery) if gays are to get married on the grounds that they have some set of rights similar or the same to those of 'normal' couples then we must be able to logically conclude that those right are such that both X and Y share R, and if that is the case then polygamous couples must also be able to share R, as per they are similar to X and Y. Additionally, if it is a civil and consent issue then why can some person P not marry his or her sibling? It seems that such an act falls under the same R (rights claim). Moreover, what if some animal and some human were to desire union, what would we say then? Perhaps, we would be tempted to say, "no". However, that cannot be right because the same basic claim that some P has and should possess R must hold to some relative extent. Thus, if we allow homosexuals to marry, then there must be concessions given to all the other prior instances listed above. So, I guess we can safely conclude that it can't be a basic human rights violation that we are talking about here, but rather some perverse tolerance claim.

Best,
J.R.P

Hail Obama...Hitler?

This is what you are going to get with this man in the office here. I would also like to say that while he (Obama) may have crushed the so-called "racial" barriar that has existed in politics, he  will also go down in history for being the most radical president yet. I almost would like to think that I should send him a copy of John Stuart Mill's, On Socialism  and see if that helps the poor Mr. Socialist President Obama out. May God have mercy on us, and may, if we are to fail, God speed the end. 

Contra Homosexuality

This is the first "official" post on this blog. Prior to it, I have been writing/pontificating about some school related stuff, but now I will get down and dirty -yes that is right, we are talking DIRTY.

With the major contoversy and squabble about the recent approval of the California highest court to legalize  same-sex marriages (if we can call them that), we have been even more bombarded by the current attempts to thwart the court's approval by way of a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8. For those of you who do not know much about the situation in California, or what Proposition 8 stands for, let me give you a quick overview via some links:

1) Gay marriages 

2) Prop 8

Since, I am just starting things off, I would not like to dig that deep into the controversy. However, I will ask for the opinion of anyone who reads this post, and I will give a -short- introduction into where I stand. 

First,  I think that Homosexuality is destructive and should be considered nothing less that a sever type of social neurosis. The reasons I have for this are based upon, I guess you could say, telos, and nature. The nature/telos claim is founded upon the fact that in order for the correct production and perpetuation of the human race, it is not only necessary, but also essential in all aspect that there exist a bond amid one part and its counter. This is further compounded by the socio-psychological importance of the stability and existence of a balanced familial unit. In such a unit, the correct lessons of everything from gender roles to complicated task are learned; the removal of the heterogeneous familiar structures creates a problem for our future generation to establish the correct roles and task that have allowed mankind to crawl from the primordial mud -unscathed. Also, there is not function or natural instrumental value -in terms of effectivity and intent- amid one part/gender that is the same as the other. 

It is interesting, as a society, we treat things like: sickness, rape, social prejudices, racism, and other dangerous problems with contempt, but homosexuality is not on our list -at least from a modern liberal view it isn't. The problem is that we have accepted it as "normal" or if not that, then what we have done is hold some passive perception of it. Moreover, we would not want to say  anything like, "It is wrong" or "we should punish them" or  "they need medicine." The majority of our society holds conceptions like: "its there decision to do as they wish" or "who am I to judge them" or "they love each other, let them be."

Whatever the claim may be, I don't feel that we should allow the acceptance of homosexuality in our society. However, I welcome any ideas that are contrary -just be prepared for a commend. 

Aesthetics, part 3: Sibley

How is it that we are able to judge art? What concepts, conditions, or properties are necessary for us to make a reliable aesthetic judgement? Perhaps we could use some condition or rule to apply some aesthetic term. However, Sibley argues in his work Aesthetic Concepts that there are "no non-aesthetic features which serve in any circumstances as logically sufficient conditions for applying aesthetic terms [and that] aesthetic or taste concepts are not in this respect condition governed"

WHAT! What does it mean to say that some aesthetic property is not condition governed, or that aesthetic concepts are not? Sibley wants to say that aesthetic concepts are not rule or condition-governed in such a way as to allow us to know that an aesthetic term is correctly applied solely by being able to specify certain non-aesthetic features of that object.  To clarify what Sibley is attempting to say, let us first distinguish amid aesthetic and non-aesthetic properties. 

1) Aesthetic property: Blueness, gracefulness, etc... 

- let us call these aesthetic properties "Alpha (a) properties"

2) Non-aesthetic properties: Curved, blueness, etc...

- let us call these non-aesthetic properties "Beta (b) properties"

So, Sibley is holding that we cannot hold that some work of art is beautiful merely because of some (b), or that because of a set of conditions {(b1), (b2), (b3)}, some art work is beautiful - or it is (a). That some work of art is beautiful in virtue of some (a) or set of (a), is not sufficient for art being, say beautiful. For Sibley, what is important is not the conditions that determine the properties (as per he feels that conditions are not able to govern aesthetic concepts), but rather, the relationships that exist amid the non-aesthetic and aesthetic properties. 

Thus, for any (a) there is no set of (b) sufficient for alpha. 

To further show what Sibley means, let us use an example. Consider what feature/properties might be used to describe (or act as conditions) someone of whom is intelligent; what might some of those conditions be? Perhaps  we could hold that because some person P is good at math, or that (s)he is able to  understand Wittgenstein with ease. However, we might just continue to add to this list almost indefinitely, but as this list may be "indefinite," it can still count in one direction -towards the fact that P is intelligent and not against P being such. Sibley feels that aesthetic concepts are not governed in this way; we cannot apply certain non-aesthetic qualities to something so as to describe or provide sufficient conditions for an aesthetic concept; but Sibley maintains that there are certain non-aesthetic qualities that can point towards the ascription of an aesthetic quality, but not in a decisive manner. Such non aesthetic qualities are only characteristic of the aesthetic quality. 

Sibley's claim can that there are no sufficient conditions for alpha properties (aesthetic properties) can further be supported by  the concept of supervenience:  A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things differ with respect to A properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, "there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference." This shows that even if the Beta properties change, the Alpha properties wont be necessarily affected, but if A changes, then B will be. So, if it were the case that Beta acted, in any sense, as a sufficient condition for Alpha, then any alteration in Beta would cause Alpha to also be altered. 

One of the key points in Sibley's essay is how are we able to understand the relations  amid these aesthetic properties. He feels that the only way to ascertain this 'relationship' is by taste; he claimed that the discernment of aesthetic properties requires a special sensitivity, whereas the discernment of non-aesthetic properties could be achieved by anyone with the ability to receive sensory input; however, the ability to posses this 'special sensitivity' was the result of some faculty of taste as a special mental faculty that is possessed by people with a special sensitivity.

The former raise the question: how is it that some people have this special ability? Sibley -indirectly responds to this and similar inquiries. He argues on (page 138-139) that  we are taught the aesthetic concepts at an early age, by parents, teachers, etc... who employ the same methods as the critic.  This causes some concern, however, the first worry is that what about the people who were not taught anything related to the methods of the critic, and what are those methods?

First, for those who can't seem to grasp aesthetic qualities we can -according to Sibley- get them to "see" those aesthetic qualities. The way that we do that is via the critic, and the critic is able to do this by way of 7 methods:

1) Help us to focus on important non-aesthetic qualities that contribute to aesthetic qualities

2) Simply point out the aesthetic quality

3) Linking the non-aesthetic to aesthetic qualities 

4) Using similes 

5) Compare and contrast

6) Repetition and reiteration 

7) Accompany all of this with appropriate body language and tone. 

So, basically we need to get out an experience the art at hand. It should also be noted that there are some worries about how the properties are presented to us, and how art is able to be negatively affected by conditions but not the other way. However, at your relief -AND MINE- I will not attempt to enter such ground! 

Thanks,

J.R.P

Additional web sites and articles

1) SE

2) Jstore: David Broiles 

3) Some additional comments by some random Professor at some random university. 

Aesthetics, Part Two: Schopenhauer

Our next adventure into the world of aesthetic thought will deal with the ideas and theories of Arthur  Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's thought takes up a smiler, but distinct, view as German Idealism (Hegel and Schelling). The main reason for his separation from the Idealism of which many of his contemporaries were teaching and propounding, was his disagreement with the over-abundant use of dialectic logic ( the main objection was the historizing tendency in Hegel's dialectic). Schopenhauer, instead, diverts by holding that there is not some rationally-infused will, or a specific principle of self-consciousness, but rather what the WILL - a mindless, aimless, non-rational, urge that is present at the foundation of our instinctual drives; and this same will is what is at the foundation of everything that exist.  He lands upon this former idea by way of his examination of Plato and Kant. From Kant he obtains the idea of the separation of phenomena and the "thing-in-itself"; Schopenhauer follows Kant's lead and accepts that the mind implicitly shapes the only knowable world to its categories of thought (but he rejects Kant's conception of building a system of knowledge - his criticism is that Kant's twelve categories of human understanding reduce down to just one, causality). One important claim that Schopenhauer makes in opposition to Kant, has to do with how knowledge is perceived. He takes sides with Plato - in many different aspects such as: adopting a type of Platonism. 

The "dialectic" that Schopenhauer seems to present is the WILL. The Will is the actualizing drive that produces objects; all individual objectification is really a matter of will, on his account. From this idea, he perpetuates the idea that the world has two parts: 1) the inner part of the Will, and 2)  the world as the Will and the world as representation. 

We are able to know the representational world by the principle of sufficient reason: our sense, motivation, judgment. This principle provides the compete scientific explanation of what something is, for Schopenhauer the what something is, is a representation.

To continue further, from the Will, ideas individuate, or become represented by the actual world. The result of the individuation of the Will is that the world in-and-of-itself is striving against itself and is thus: frustrating, meaningless,  and void of knowledge. Additionally, within this continuos strife there is us, humans, and within us there is also present this unyielding strife in the form of a desire cycle. In this cycle we will to get something/desire something, but because one lacks what you desire, you suffer. However, once you obtain something you possess a brief moment of fulfillment, and then ennui sets in, which is, again, suffering. So, desire -> satisfaction-> ennui-> desire = suffering.

How is it, then, that we can escape this vicious cycle? This is where the aesthetic applies.  By way of art and aesthetic experience, we are able to achieve a more tranquil state of consciousness, and  the genius is able to make manifest the ideas of platonic forms. Aesthetic perception thus raises a person into a pure will-less , painless, and timeless state of knowledge (Will-lessness is the negation of the Will).  So, to explain how this works: suppose that you are outside and you see an amazing sunset, and during that brief moment you experience a time in which you forget all particulars and desires - that is the state of will-less-ness. We appreciate works of art (of the artistic genius) so as to have better knowledge of the Platonic ideas, and the will-less state leads us closer to the these ideas. 

We read:

" Only through the pure contemplation described above, which ends entirely in the object, can ideas be comprehended; and the nature of genius consist in preeminent capacity for such contemplation" and "But what kind of knowledge is concerned with that which is outside and independent of all relations, that which alone is really essential to the world, the true content of its phenomena that which is subject too no chance and therefore is known with equal truth for all time and in a word the ideas, which are the direct and adequate objectivity of the thing in itself, the will?" (The World as Will and Idea)

(So the genius is the capacity to tap into these ideas and represent them via art. And music is able to bypass and know the will directly -music is unique)

The idea that one is able to come to an apprehension of certain Platonic forms by way of art is basically taking Plato's argument upside-down. Plato has claimed that art is down with the reflections and shadows of the physical world, and thus,  draws us away from the truth -the forms. Nevertheless, Schopenhauer holds that this is not the case, rather we come closer to them by art. 

I think that it is worthy to note that the story of Ixion ( a Greek myth) provides an interesting analogy of how Schopehauer cashes-out his idea of the Will and how one escapes it. According to the myth, Ixion was sentenced to be tied to a burning wheel by Zeus. Ixion received this punishment for lusting after Zeus' wife Hera, and the only time that Ixion is able to feel any form of relief from this punishment is when Orepheus played his Lyre. 

Thanks,

J.R.P

Sources and web pages to be visited for further info:

1) Sanford Ency. 

2) Certain lectures 

Aesthetics, Part One: Plato

Some may not know what the word: Aesthetics means, but you should! This word is something that describes some property that is fundamental to us being who we are, human. The admiration of beauty and or being concerned with beauty is what Aesthetics means. Being able to admire the beautiful, the sublime, the mundane -the aesthetic, has been considered a way to admire life and the parts of it that contribute wholly to our existence (this was especially propounded by Nietzsche). Usually, the term/word: Aesthetics has been used to describe the beauty or "aesthetic value" of art. Art and aesthetics have been intricately involved long before the term was coined. Many feel that art is a way for use to escape from pains or appreciate something beside us like -life. Nevertheless, even if you may agree with the previous, there is a strong argument made by one of the most well-know philosophers in history  -Plato.

I would like to take a moment and outline the basic view of Plato's argument, and then provide some thoughts concerning his position. 

To proceed let us quickly pass though some of the general ideas of Plato

1. There exists a more complete and "perfect" realm beside the actual experienced world that is filled with certain entities called: Forms. These "Forms" are eternal and changeless. 

- Forms can be understood as some absolute "idea"

- Plato sometimes describes "Forms" as Hypothesis

2.  Forms are paradigmatic for the physical objects, which are represented by shadows and reflections of the Forms.

- The physical realm (the actual realm) is always changing. The Forms do not.

- The Forms can be understood more adequately by the faculties of soul.

- The faculties consist of reason and understanding.

Now concerning the soul, we must make a distinction (as per this is a large part of his aesthetic theory). The soul consists of three parts.

1. Reason (Highest faculty/part; these people are the rulers Guardians) 

2. Spirited (Passions/thymus; the people of 2, are the guardians/warriors)

3. Appetitive (Desires,appetites, etc... For most people 3 is the strongest and for those people they are suited for being the merchants)

Any state that is ruled by the Merchants or guardians (small 'g') is an unjust state. Moreover, 

A well-constituted person should have reason at the head and thus should be able to keep passions in check. Ok, we have considered and reviewed some basic views concerning Plato's metaphysics, but what does this have to do with beauty and art? In Plato's book The Republic, he is trying to evaluate the question:  What role do the lyric poets have in the ideal state? Plato concludes that they must be banished. Why should they be banished, you ask? Plato feels that poetry removes us from the forms.

 The first account that we find that deals with this argument is that art (poetry) is a mere representation of the forms, and thus causes us to be trice removed from reality. If you think about the constitution of the state we don't look toward the artist for knowledge of true things, of reality; we can further evaluate this claim by noting that since God made the forms, and the craftsman creates the physical objects (physical artifacts). So, humans create some "copy" of the some form when they produce some object. The craftsman must be closer to an understanding of some form than an artist is, for an artist is only able to copy the image or portray a reflection of a form. So, suppose that some craftsmen makes a bed, the bed would then be a instantiation or representation of the form 'bed.' However, the problem, then, is that art -such as painting-  is a mere representation of some physical object, and in this case a painting would be merely a mere representation of the artifact or bed that was made by the craftsmen. Since there is the first instantiation or representation of the form 'bed,' and there is the second instantiation, the art/painting of the first representation of the bed and thus we go from (1) the from bed (2) the physical objectification of bed, and  (3) the painting. This retraction is bad because the forms are truth and thus your are removed from the truth by art. For example: the art of painting is to capture what things appear to be and not as they really are, so Plato ends up cashing art out as shadow's and illusions. 

An additional problem with the argument that art is illusion is that since  art is a copy of a copy art appeals to an inferior part of the soul and can be at best entertainment and at worst mere delusion; the part of the soul that Plato would most likely feel this is being applied to is probably the passions/pleasure part. What I see being a problem for Plato's argument is that some paintings like those of Pollock do not represent any particular object, so how would Plato deal with such art?

The Second [art is powerful and stirs-up emotion] argument that is made in favor of Plato's conception that poetry and such should be cast out of the state. (Against the Poet) Artist stir-up the emotions and make it harder for reason to control the lower faculties of the soul/keep things in line (reason). 

The Third Argument is similar to the second: art work can arouse our sympathetic emotions. the idea here is that this goes against how we want to act, in our own real-life case. So, in other words, you watch something tragic and you weep and wail, but when you face your own tragedy you want to have some control of the passions -you don't want to loose your mastery (Stoic mastery) of the passions of the soul. In the Republic Plato states,

"But we have not yet brought forward the heaviest account in our accusation:-the power that poetry has in harming even the good, is surely an awful thing?"

"Yes certainly, if the effect is what you say"

"Hear and judge: the best of us, as I conceive , when we listen to a passage of Homer, or one of the tragedians, in which he represents some pitiful hero who is drawling our his sorrows in a long oration, or weeping, and smiting his breast -the best of us, you know        delight in giving away to sympathy and are in raptures at the excellence of the poet who stirs our feelings most." 

"Yes of course, I know"

" But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we pride ourselves on thee opposite quality-we would fain be quiet and patient; this is the manly part, and the other which delighted us is the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman"

What are some of the objections that can be made to Plato beside the objection already mentioned in the first argument. 

1) Emotional Reasoning

- There is a strongly  supported claim that reason and emotion are closely tied together. Consider, so called practical reason. Kant talks about practical reason (i.e. ethics).  

In the spirit of Hume: -emotion is closely wed to moral reason, so we don't want to abstract reason from emotion, but rather train the emotion to work in conjunction with reason. Additionally, some moral psychologist feel the imaginative moral element is important in being able to understand the function of ethics; empathic development might be a certain function of art, and art might be able to stretch our capacities so as to make us understand more in depth how we can reason morally. Also, if art has an instrumental value it could help push us towards moral understanding... If we adopt this objection, this seems to really crush his view because instead of art being bad due to its adverse effects on our morality, it is actually better for our morality (but this seems to be mainly for [1] and [2]). How could we argue more solidly for (2)? Even if the arts do lead us from truth, is it an either or statement here; why can one not do both? I personally feel that there is not much of a difference for physical artifacts and art. It could be the case that art might actually make a better representation of some form than some object. So, suppose that I make a bed and that bed looks more like a stone, and suppose further that I paint some image of a bed (a bed that I never saw), and that bed that I have painted is more precise than the created bed (like an instruction picture).  

However, Plato seems to have a good point in a sense. There are certain works that might sociologically or psychologically alter or affect someone to do some incorrect behavior; like morbid accept, moral insensibility, rationalization of bad behavior, even illegal and evil acts.  

That is Plato in a nutshell, and next I will examine the view of Schopenhauer. 

Thanks,

J.R.P

 

Here are a few great links to web pages that discuss this very idea. 

1. Rowan.edu

2. Stanford Encyclopedia 

3. SE/ Plato's metaphysics