Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ephemerios t1_j16mkf9 wrote

> but with just this definition, how satisfactory do you find it?

Not satisfactory at all. The definition is fairly idiosyncratic (for no apparent reason), lacks intuitive appeal, and the complete lack of reasoning makes it nearly impossible to accept.

1

jank_ram t1_j18zxci wrote

Yes, I realized midway that I could just keep on explaining and would need to stop at some point too early, so I stopped at the conclusion waiting for questions.

Of course, we will need some common ground here, that would be:
1- god is what's on top of any value structure. for all intends and purposes to an individual relation that would be god.
2- reaching the top of a value structure requires measured steps measured by how far the are able to move in that structure, after accounting for the changes to the structure done by the movement.
3- everything that can be called "art" definitely has commonality, hinting at the existence at an intrinsic object of pure art, all seems to culminate into the input of the receiver (that would be a conscious being) through a medium (those would be the senses) such mediums are majorly visual, sound and literature (literature could be under a broader term of logic or pattern but would then take a large part of the visual and the sound spheres) and I would argue logically there is a perfect art, (I would even call prayer) that is fully non related to the input medium, and only later it diverges into the different art mediums.

Now on those assumptions or conclusions what are the disagreements?

1