@@children_of_indigo And the camera is used without its consent at the whims of someone who claims unashamedly to own it. Would that then mean that the camera is a slave? By extension does that mean all cameras are slaves? If in fact they are, then all photo and videographic representations of our history only exist by means of slavery?
At some point during the 1960s, someone (possibly an employee of EMI) obtained a recording of birds singing for EMI's sound catalog. Later, that recording of those birds was used by the Beatles for the song "Blackbird". Later still, Pink Floyd used those same birds for "Goodbye Blue Sky". Now, the sound artist for EMI didn't cue the birds when to sing or prompt them in any manner whatsoever. All he did was place a recording device in the area and that device eventually picked up the sound of those birds. Just like David Slater (who had to turn on his camera), the only action taken by the sound engineer was turning on his recorder. After that, the engineer had no more control than Slater did when it came to what ended up being recorded. By the copyright office's logic, does that mean the descendants of those birds are owed back royalties from both the Beatles and Pink Floyd?
From that logic anyone could rip off the cinematic camera shots of lord of the ring for their own movies without paying 200 000$ to rent helicopters and visit faraway locations. The guy owned a recorder, wanted bird sound samples, and actually went through the effort of recording it. He should be able to benefit from the work he did.
GregTom2 -- That's my point. David Slater did the same thing. He wanted to get pictures of monkeys, so he took his camera to an area where monkeys were, turned his camera on (the monkey didn't do it), then he allowed the monkey to grab the camera to see what would happen. Aesthetically, everything that ended up on film was guided (no matter how loosely) by Slater's willful actions... which means all of the shots, including the ones snapped by the monkey, should be considered his. I would like to add that, I don't believe Slater's story. I'm of the opinion that Slater either took that photo himself, or he otherwise coaxed the monkey into taking it. Slater then invented that story in an effort to make his photo go viral (which it did). Slater screwed himself with his own story because he gave the monkey way too much credit (more credit than it deserved). And that ended up causing him to lose the rights to his own photograph in the process (poetic justice).
@@thebonesaw..4634 also, what would the monkey or the birds do with the money? they aren't humans. all this stuff with recording and money and copyright is just the society that we humans created. the animals don't have anything to do with it. obviously we shouldn't be cruel to animals, but sometime peta goes a little to far with that. the monkey wasn't going to be harmed if it didn't get the money or the rights to the picture. Also, peta released a vegan guide to playing animal crossing; the bugs and fish in animal crossing aren't real they are just numbers in a program and lights on a screen. Im not completly against peta or anything tho.
I love that Hank calls out his brother John for not agreeing with Aristotle though he came up with Catharsis-an emotion many, many people felt while reading or watching John's own art, A Fault in Our Stars.
I so love catharsis. I have moments where it feels like I need that feeling more than just about anything. I can't say I know what that means. But if there weren't those forms of art, I fear there'd be times where I'd snap like a bowstring.
I was never very interested in philosophy before I started watching these crash course vids and now I look forward to every new episode. Thanks crash course for giving me a fun and interesting way into this subject :D
No its okay I just saw a lot of people saying stuff like "oh gold fish blending is bad then why isn't killing cows bad" I honestly applaud that piece of art
If the content of the blender were drunken up with the intention to actually get nurished, than yeah. If it were drunken for the sake of a sadistic show element, than no.
I really do think about Helena (the goldfish installation) as amazing art but it's also incredibly scary and not directly because of the potential death of the goldfish (although that's also not a nice thought) but rather because of the reflections it questions not only us as individuals but even our whole society and the concept of living.
I am in the arts - I have a doctorate in cello performance - and I always chuckle at some of the philosophers' comments on art. There has been an "aesthetic Puritanism" among some philosophers that have a problem with a person simply having a pleasurable experience with art, and feel the need to give art some higher "purpose" beyond just a wonderful encounter with the beautiful. It's all quite silly. They feel they have to justify art as having some higher purpose such as a moral purpose and so on. I like what Kant said; to have an aesthetic experience you have to *put aside* all scientific explanations or ideas of the utilitarian purpose of the object and simply enjoy it for it's beauty. If you approach art from the standpoint of the utilitarian or scientific you will miss the beauty. Take for example a beautiful piece of land with a river running through it surrounded by mountains with a host of trees; if you look at it and think about its purpose such as, "This would make a great place for my farm. I could put the chickens there, and the cows over there" or a scientific explanation as to how the valley came into being, or even "This would make a great financial investment", you will miss the beauty.
i'm doing a minor in aesthetics at uni and still had learned so much from just one short video.. amazing how you can compress knowledge into 10 mins :O thanks for the experience
I'm interested in the question "Do we have an obligation to consume certain media/art in order to improve our outlook?" I've had many friends try to pressure me into watching certain movies that I'd rather not, and their reasoning is that it changes the way you think. I would love to know what philosophers have said about this.
One of the most prominent features of human cognition is the ability to treat make believe objects as real. Countries, money, laws, these are all abstract inventions. I see nothing different about our ability to experience emotional responses from fiction or other art, or any good reason to assume without evidence that our emotions aren't "real", whatever that means. True, people do tend to process and react to a death on the big screen differently than one on the sidewalk. But even that distinction is blurred. Your Uncle Tom's Cabin example is a case in point, with readers acting more appropriately to the fate of fictional characters than they did to the conditions of real human beings. Goodness, badness, or morality of art is a different matter, but as for its actions on our minds, there is no reason to imagine and invent some special mechanism at play different from our reactions and interactions to the world in general. They both manipulate the same neural machinery in similar fashions. Philosophy should not abandon science or think of itself as some separate discipline unrelated to its "higher" concerns. A great error of the nineteenth century.
That was amazing, however, money and nation are divisive, while art generally is unifying. They are 2 sides of the same coin, but one deserves to be face down.
Elephant Warrior perhaps. But money and nation and other abstractions have also been enormously unifying, enough so to produce civilizations and amazing technical progress. And art has its divisive points too, sometimes intentionally so. I would also include a great deal of religious material, iconography, stories, architecture, rituals, as art, with its own history of both unification and division. But some insist on putting this in its own category. I suspect the principals are very similar though.
The human capacity for symbolic thinking is truly amazing; we can create symbols and imbue deep meaning into them, and these meanings in turn change us and our reality. You might be interested to know that in anthropology, there is a theory that as natural selection gave us the ability to have culture, culture in turn helped drive our evolution into what we are today.
Most modern philosophers today are working under a broad umbrella term of 'New Realism'. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel, Susan Haack, the late Umberto Eco, Diego Marconi, the late John Searle, the late Hilary Putnam, Lewis Gordon - just to name a few - have a new definition of 'realism' that 1) makes a distinction between 'being' and 'existence' (A distinction that goes back to Alexius Meinong). 2) Defines existence soley through a specialized form of 'context.' _I.e. existence without context is ruled out by definition._ So if we say that 'a country' doesn't exist, what we really mean is that it does not exist in a context without humans, but we also imply that it _does exist_ in the context of human existence.
I came for the art and thought process behind it just to be mindblown that an actual primate is named after an anime character created by Kishimoto. we have come far. What a great time to be alive.
Jacob Marion My piece of advise is: don't expect public acclaim, or cult classic. Just try to make something you value, and think others can enjoy. I think it's the right attitude, doesn't matter if it's a success or not
wish you sucess. think about your life, what matters and what changes it, what may change it. If i do this, its like a fountain of toughts for paintings, texts and even music.
Tell me more about the aesthetic meaning of goat simulator. Some games are just simple escapism. I don't go looking for escapism when I'm looking for art. Other games with a decent story? Yup. Clearly art.
Goat simulator is art. It allows us to explore different perspectives and view the world from the point of view of a goat, as Uncle Tom's Cabin showed people the point of view of a slave.
Follow up episode on Neo-Materialism? Who creates the artistic image? The person taking the photo? The subject that lends themself to its creation? The creators of like art that inspired it? The company that manufactures the camera? The designer who made the schematics? The worker in the factory that machines the parts? The person who discovered the technique behind the process of photography? And so on and so forth. It's a really fascinating wormhole :)
Art, like everything else, does not exist in a vacuum. If someone's art does harm, directly or indirectly, they are not immune to responsibility for that harm.
Aesthetic value is valued by its novelty. Since the resulting work is also novel, but in a different way, it has undergone both reduction and growth. Whether that is a net reduction depends on the viewer.
It is stupid. The one who is guilty is the one who did the crime, not the one who inspired the other to do so. If we say that artist is guilty why then we don't say that the guilty one is actually somebody else who inspired him to create the product of art? And then infinity of the guilty ones. Like all humanity history is guilty because you read this comment, then you may get angry and kill somebody. Lol
Western Civilization was Precipitated on the Principles of Greek Egyptian Sumerian Babylonian language...Roman was Forced upon our World by Priest of the Catholic ordo... Priori is Key to Most Gnosis you seek,,,, Enoch a Door was open,, Jesus said He Knock The Door is Open,,, I Knock Every Door Opens says a Me.
4:41 "Art requires an interntional artist." But what about intentional artists? That aside, considering that the sorts of cameras used by professional photographers, don't require much configuring by the photographer and have features such as autofocus, that allow for quality photos to be taken without any intent required on the part of the one handling the camera. So, no, Naruto is not the artist behind that photo, and can't claim copyright. Never mind, that the whole scenario begs the question, what would a monkey do with money?
pirrepe I doubt the induvidual monkey would have gotten any real money, perhaps they would give him some prensents (chom choms offcourse) just to appease the people that are strict on it. I don't believe they had to truly believe that the animal had a right to copyright, just looking to exploit a legal loophole for the purpose of helping their organization, financially and for publicity.
Thank you very much for making this video, John Green and the others at _Crash Course_ Philosophy! This video has really made me thinking. I do believe art is necessary in our lives in order to be able to freely express emotion and that is art’s primary purpose but art that actually does some good and changes the world or the lives of people and/or targets the intellectual part of ourselves is to be valued a little bit higher, like this video should be valued a bit higher by most people than _PewDiePie_’s ‘KISSING MY GIRLFRIEND’ or ‘TOAD SHITS ON ME’. Thank you for making me reconsider my attitude towards art! By the way, I do think both the monkey and the photographer are to be credited for those amazing images! 50/50 man!
lol weebs killing me over here. Naruto is a fish cake. the ninja is named after the same thing the monkey was. I know, joke, but it's a reeeeeeeeeally common comment and it hurts my soul. Naruto is so frickin' good, too. try it.
Not going to lie, when this segment started I was like "Oh great, 'Art'. Who cares?" Now that the segment is over I am far more interested. Thanks Crash Course.
7:40 "Our emotions don't have to correspond to external reality, in order for the emotions themselves to be real." It's really, really hard not to connect that sentence to politics.
I love catharsis. There aren't a bunch of songs that can bring me to tears but there are a few I can go back to when I want to cry that do it for me, it's great.
But can someone tell me why art/ beauty/ aesthetics are so attractive when it has no survival need...I'm talking about the beauty of things in general not just humans
In the republic Plato is not actually against art. He is describing a terrible state where everything is banned so he can make the point at the end of the republic that if everything is banned then the citizens will have no experience in life and will not be wise. In the symposium he talks about how artist are inspired by love and love is the greatest helper in seeing the Beautiful which is the Good, Truth, and God.
I just this guy so much. He talks fast, throws in a bunch of other subjects (that make part of the thought line), and one should not lose track of the main idea. Thank you for being so helpful!
Was it just my mind that when a different direction when he talked about voluntarily walking into a movie theatre clutching a box of tissues. It just got worse when he said the emotional purge that comes with the experience feels really, really good.
probably helps to think of PETA not as an activist group but as a group that proclaims that it is an activist for animal rights, but instead work against the animal (see the various reports about their euthanizing various household animals that couldn't be adopted) or for their own self-interest (I mean, let's be honest, WHO would be getting the profits from the sales of Naruto's photos?)
If you start justifying killing as an alternative to suffering, where do you draw the line? Suffering is relative and without it, no being could ever experience relief or deliverance from suffering.
As an art maker, I appreciated this immensely. So much of this makes a lot of my decisions make more sense and give them more meaning when I make them.
I'm a little confused about Walton's "quasi emotion" argument. If he defines quasi-emotions as emotions felt in the context of fiction, isn't that kind of a tautological cop-out? All he's doing is saying the "quasi-emotions" aren't emotions but he does nothing to explain what they are instead. It kind of feels like saying that the answer to an algebra problem is equal to a constant whose value is equal to the (unknown) solution: it just doesn't really progress the discussion. Sure, we may react to equivalent emotions differently in the context of fiction vs reality, but can the same not be said of differing contexts that are equally real/false? (For example, using the horror movie analogy, you would react differently to a person breaking into your house versus a spider. Both cause fear but they do not have the same response.) Psychologically, I imagine some of that comes down to us doing something interesting: the same way humans and some other animals play to practice adult skills in a safe environment, could art, then, be a form of mental play-behavior? (I should clarify that I meant "safe" for the viewer, the goldfish wouldn't call the blender thing art and the same could be said, as an example, for the "works" of Sander Cohen from the Bioshock games.)
What if why this feels really really good is that it renews our knowledge almost as prepare ourselves to be able to better understand and read others emotions and everything surrounding them to make decisions from there, from that which is being prepared to be a precise and as rounded as possible conclusion as to what is happening to another human on the emotional level.
What can I do with a degree in philosophy? I'm a senior in high school and I'm applying for the colleges I want to go to, but I don't know what I want to do or major in. Im deeply interested in philosophy, theology and religion, as well as psychology and social sciences. I feel like a major in philosophy is what I want, but I'm too afraid that it won't lead me to a particular career or field, maybe a teacher or lawyer? Or some field in science or theology? I don't really care how much I'll get paid, I just want to make sure that my love for philosophy will lead me into a field and will pay off, and I won't just spend years and thousands for a souped-up hobby. Maybe I should major in psych or social work and a minor in philosophy.
You can pursuer carriers in law, journalism, psychology and consoling (which is what I'm doing, carries in law, teaching, etc. I had the same problem as you when I was applying for colleges but did know what I could do with a philosophy degree. It may be wise to duel major in something so your job opportunities are not cut short.
jordan w omg same. I'm in senior high too and have been so confused whether I'd pick psych or Philo but I suggest if you want to know more on apparent truth go for Psych because you can become a researcher and actually answer the questions that you ponder yourself on philosophy.
@@bluesteel1389 a psych B.A. is inferior to a Phil B.A. psych is only relevant if you go the PhD or psychiatry route, even the psychologist track is iffy. This is coming from a university senior who knows computer scientists and law students that did Phil in undergrad and has only one friend (rich international student) that went psych cause she isn't worried about ROI. I'm an econ major so no horse in the race, but Phil in the US is more analytical than continental, you will work with logic and probability and counting and permutations and you might even work on induction. Some high level phil classes were objectively harder than some stats classes and shared much of the same material.
Wait, the selfie monkey's name was Naruto? I'm just imagining this otaku nature photographer like "This one's Rukia, and this one,s luffy, and, GUTS STOP SMASHING THINGS DAMNIT!"
Love this series. I just started watching it a few days ago and am already, well, this far into it. But 2 episodes about Aesthetics and the role of morality in art without a single mention of Oscar Wilde? For shame! Aside from that, great work.
Im ASSUMING (don't quote me on this) that the money would go towards the preservation or protection of their jungle or a breeding program for his species or something.
Yea, I think that Naruto should be compensated, at least in some way like providing his family with some bananas every now and then, but PETA should be left waaaaay out of it.
I present another ideology: Art isn’t inherently good or evil by itself, but it is created through human action and choice; the actions, choices and influence surrounding a work of art are inherently tied to morality, but the aesthetic appeal of art is dependent on the beholder.
Hi crashcourse, thank you again for an informative video. I'm still confused though about the distinction between the philosophy of aesthetics and the philosophy of art. From what I've read, what you're explaining in this video is more specifically gravitated towards the philosophy of arts and not (more generally) of aesthetics. I think this is quite an important distinction to begin with, because the philosophy of aesthetics itself hasn't reached a conclusion to whether or not it should only be concerned with the "arts" or - more broadly - of "beauty" and "taste". It would be much appreciated if you could clarify this question. Thank you again :))
Keep in mind, this was in Denmark, not the US. Animal cruelty laws change depending on what country you are in. In Sweden, it's actually illegal to buy only 1 rat. You have to buy him a buddy to live with or it's considered cruel. :)
Many places have distinctions on why the animal is being killed. If it is being done for pleasure to entertainment is it a crime. If it is being done for a practical reason it is not.
Shipping raises some of the same questions as the Slater/Naruto case does. Because when you ship, you are in a sense taking ownership of these fictional characters -- characters you had no role in creating -- and having them behave in ways you would prefer rather than those preferred by the creator. Many shippers assume that just about every character ever written is on the LGBTQ spectrum without "canon" evidence. ("Canon" in this case refers to what is present in the original artwork the shipper takes inspiration from -- for example, it is canon in Steven Universe that Pearl had been completely fixated on her leader Rose Quartz for hundreds and thousands of years, while it is speculative that Peridot and Lapis are a couple, albeit a dysfunctional one.) Other shippers take friendships and advance them into romantic or sexual relationships. While many creators pay absolutely no attention to this, knowing it does not prevent them from writing those characters the way they choose, others are offended, while still others find them food for thought. If the creator of the work does object to what you are doing, do you need to stop? Do you need to stop if future canon material contradicts your speculation? Who is the real creator of a piece of fanart or fanfiction?
~4:53 There's two questions here, who deserves the profit and does it count as art. It seems obvious to me that legally the guy deserves the profit so I wont bother explaining why but rather (hopefully) answer the question of how artificial the picture is. Technically it wouldn't exist without mankind's intention to make a camera and the intention of this individual to use it to create images. However atypically the final cause of that specific image wasn't intended (at all really, when you realize Naruto couldn't have intended to create it). It's just incidental that it happened to be high quality. In the causal chain of events humans are by far the most responsible for it's existence so it's art.
The question of whether art and morality can be connected is an absolute yes. To see this, all you must do is visualize an artist putting on display a human body, open, with his organs extracted, yet still connected, and the human still alive and conscious.
Don’t mind me, just keeping the chom chom trend alive
That one hair that stood out of place on Hank’s head was art.
Is anyone going to question the monkey's name? Naruto
NARUTO HAHAHA
IKR hahahahaha
I was looking for this comment
The artist behind the photo is the camera. The camera blended light to create the creation we adore.
😏
@@children_of_indigo And the camera is used without its consent at the whims of someone who claims unashamedly to own it. Would that then mean that the camera is a slave? By extension does that mean all cameras are slaves? If in fact they are, then all photo and videographic representations of our history only exist by means of slavery?
At some point during the 1960s, someone (possibly an employee of EMI) obtained a recording of birds singing for EMI's sound catalog. Later, that recording of those birds was used by the Beatles for the song "Blackbird". Later still, Pink Floyd used those same birds for "Goodbye Blue Sky". Now, the sound artist for EMI didn't cue the birds when to sing or prompt them in any manner whatsoever. All he did was place a recording device in the area and that device eventually picked up the sound of those birds. Just like David Slater (who had to turn on his camera), the only action taken by the sound engineer was turning on his recorder. After that, the engineer had no more control than Slater did when it came to what ended up being recorded. By the copyright office's logic, does that mean the descendants of those birds are owed back royalties from both the Beatles and Pink Floyd?
If you can find them, sure. :D
From that logic anyone could rip off the cinematic camera shots of lord of the ring for their own movies without paying 200 000$ to rent helicopters and visit faraway locations.
The guy owned a recorder, wanted bird sound samples, and actually went through the effort of recording it. He should be able to benefit from the work he did.
GregTom2 -- That's my point. David Slater did the same thing. He wanted to get pictures of monkeys, so he took his camera to an area where monkeys were, turned his camera on (the monkey didn't do it), then he allowed the monkey to grab the camera to see what would happen. Aesthetically, everything that ended up on film was guided (no matter how loosely) by Slater's willful actions... which means all of the shots, including the ones snapped by the monkey, should be considered his.
I would like to add that, I don't believe Slater's story. I'm of the opinion that Slater either took that photo himself, or he otherwise coaxed the monkey into taking it. Slater then invented that story in an effort to make his photo go viral (which it did). Slater screwed himself with his own story because he gave the monkey way too much credit (more credit than it deserved). And that ended up causing him to lose the rights to his own photograph in the process (poetic justice).
@@thebonesaw..4634 it's honestly delightful and hilarious when you put it like that.
@@thebonesaw..4634 also, what would the monkey or the birds do with the money? they aren't humans. all this stuff with recording and money and copyright is just the society that we humans created. the animals don't have anything to do with it. obviously we shouldn't be cruel to animals, but sometime peta goes a little to far with that. the monkey wasn't going to be harmed if it didn't get the money or the rights to the picture. Also, peta released a vegan guide to playing animal crossing; the bugs and fish in animal crossing aren't real they are just numbers in a program and lights on a screen. Im not completly against peta or anything tho.
I love that Hank calls out his brother John for not agreeing with Aristotle though he came up with Catharsis-an emotion many, many people felt while reading or watching John's own art, A Fault in Our Stars.
Charm Hole thanks I was wondering who John was and why he said things that are so spectacularly wrong about Aristotle
I so love catharsis. I have moments where it feels like I need that feeling more than just about anything. I can't say I know what that means. But if there weren't those forms of art, I fear there'd be times where I'd snap like a bowstring.
I was never very interested in philosophy before I started watching these crash course vids and now I look forward to every new episode. Thanks crash course for giving me a fun and interesting way into this subject :D
A E S T H E T I C
S A D B O Y S ™ and S A D G I ® L S unite!
The_Primo_Z Could you explain please? Where is this phenomenon from?
n o i d e a t b h
The_Primo_Z K t h a n k s t h o
ｉｔ＇ｓ ｖａｐｏｒｗａｖｅ
"Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable." - Banksy
chom choms are yom yom in my tom tom
🍌🍌🍌🍌
nom nom nom
You like Chom Choms, too? 0.0
NOM
NiggaBlossom Oh yea? Choms Choms no like you!
The gold fish thing was not art. It was a psychology experiment that didn't have to go through an ethics committee
So blending a goldfish is animal cruelty but boiling a live lobster isn't. Ok.....
The difference is one you eat the other is killed for the sake of killing, and for others amusement
+David Pardy
Taste is okay, but thought isn't?
No its okay I just saw a lot of people saying stuff like "oh gold fish blending is bad then why isn't killing cows bad" I honestly applaud that piece of art
So I guess blending goldfish would be okay if you drank the contents of the blender afterwards?
If the content of the blender were drunken up with the intention to actually get nurished, than yeah. If it were drunken for the sake of a sadistic show element, than no.
No fish were harmed in the making of this episode.
I really do think about Helena (the goldfish installation) as amazing art but it's also incredibly scary and not directly because of the potential death of the goldfish (although that's also not a nice thought) but rather because of the reflections it questions not only us as individuals but even our whole society and the concept of living.
I am in the arts - I have a doctorate in cello performance - and I always chuckle at some of the philosophers' comments on art. There has been an "aesthetic Puritanism" among some philosophers that have a problem with a person simply having a pleasurable experience with art, and feel the need to give art some higher "purpose" beyond just a wonderful encounter with the beautiful. It's all quite silly. They feel they have to justify art as having some higher purpose such as a moral purpose and so on. I like what Kant said; to have an aesthetic experience you have to *put aside* all scientific explanations or ideas of the utilitarian purpose of the object and simply enjoy it for it's beauty. If you approach art from the standpoint of the utilitarian or scientific you will miss the beauty. Take for example a beautiful piece of land with a river running through it surrounded by mountains with a host of trees; if you look at it and think about its purpose such as, "This would make a great place for my farm. I could put the chickens there, and the cows over there" or a scientific explanation as to how the valley came into being, or even "This would make a great financial investment", you will miss the beauty.
i'm doing a minor in aesthetics at uni and still had learned so much from just one short video.. amazing how you can compress knowledge into 10 mins :O thanks for the experience
I'm interested in the question "Do we have an obligation to consume certain media/art in order to improve our outlook?" I've had many friends try to pressure me into watching certain movies that I'd rather not, and their reasoning is that it changes the way you think. I would love to know what philosophers have said about this.
One of the most prominent features of human cognition is the ability to treat make believe objects as real. Countries, money, laws, these are all abstract inventions. I see nothing different about our ability to experience emotional responses from fiction or other art, or any good reason to assume without evidence that our emotions aren't "real", whatever that means.
True, people do tend to process and react to a death on the big screen differently than one on the sidewalk. But even that distinction is blurred. Your Uncle Tom's Cabin example is a case in point, with readers acting more appropriately to the fate of fictional characters than they did to the conditions of real human beings.
Goodness, badness, or morality of art is a different matter, but as for its actions on our minds, there is no reason to imagine and invent some special mechanism at play different from our reactions and interactions to the world in general. They both manipulate the same neural machinery in similar fashions.
Philosophy should not abandon science or think of itself as some separate discipline unrelated to its "higher" concerns. A great error of the nineteenth century.
That was amazing, however, money and nation are divisive, while art generally is unifying. They are 2 sides of the same coin, but one deserves to be face down.
Elephant Warrior perhaps. But money and nation and other abstractions have also been enormously unifying, enough so to produce civilizations and amazing technical progress. And art has its divisive points too, sometimes intentionally so. I would also include a great deal of religious material, iconography, stories, architecture, rituals, as art, with its own history of both unification and division. But some insist on putting this in its own category. I suspect the principals are very similar though.
k
The human capacity for symbolic thinking is truly amazing; we can create symbols and imbue deep meaning into them, and these meanings in turn change us and our reality.
You might be interested to know that in anthropology, there is a theory that as natural selection gave us the ability to have culture, culture in turn helped drive our evolution into what we are today.
Most modern philosophers today are working under a broad umbrella term of 'New Realism'. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel, Susan Haack, the late Umberto Eco, Diego Marconi, the late John Searle, the late Hilary Putnam, Lewis Gordon - just to name a few - have a new definition of 'realism' that
1) makes a distinction between 'being' and 'existence' (A distinction that goes back to Alexius Meinong).
2) Defines existence soley through a specialized form of 'context.' _I.e. existence without context is ruled out by definition._
So if we say that 'a country' doesn't exist, what we really mean is that it does not exist in a context without humans, but we also imply that it _does exist_ in the context of human existence.
I came for the art and thought process behind it just to be mindblown that an actual primate is named after an anime character created by Kishimoto.
we have come far. What a great time to be alive.
About to fail my philosophy exam
good luck dude, u might need it
same here 👋👋😥😭😭
You don't appear to be very concerned about it.
why fight it...at that point it was fate
Kyle Hills Determinism is true so you are right
That goldfish blender exhibit is twisted, but genius
found the voyeur
This somehow quickly became my favorite crash course series. Unexpected and very welcome, thank you!
6:53 even though we don't want to admit we all think about it. The things that make others sad.
I want to create magic art and, hopefully one day, the world will get to experience it.
Wish you the best of luck and confidence!
Jacob Marion My piece of advise is: don't expect public acclaim, or cult classic. Just try to make something you value, and think others can enjoy. I think it's the right attitude, doesn't matter if it's a success or not
hopefully you get to make it in the first place is more like it
+TyDreacon Thanks! :D
wish you sucess. think about your life, what matters and what changes it, what may change it. If i do this, its like a fountain of toughts for paintings, texts and even music.
"Stick-with-it-ness"? You mean "perseverance".
I think he means glue
Allison Scanlan Or maybe duct tape
Dont be so dreary. People dont have to express and talk like you want
After watching this, how are video games not considered art?
Adrian Duran they are by most people.
They are. People who say otherwise just haven't noticed that 20 years have passed by.
Tell me more about the aesthetic meaning of goat simulator.
Some games are just simple escapism. I don't go looking for escapism when I'm looking for art. Other games with a decent story? Yup. Clearly art.
Some art is just simple escapism too, so video games can be art.
Goat simulator is art. It allows us to explore different perspectives and view the world from the point of view of a goat, as Uncle Tom's Cabin showed people the point of view of a slave.
Follow up episode on Neo-Materialism?
Who creates the artistic image?
The person taking the photo?
The subject that lends themself to its creation?
The creators of like art that inspired it?
The company that manufactures the camera?
The designer who made the schematics?
The worker in the factory that machines the parts?
The person who discovered the technique behind the process of photography?
And so on and so forth.
It's a really fascinating wormhole :)
"Interntional artist."
Ehrmagerd, interntional ertists!!!
It's just the aesthetic bruh
Art, like everything else, does not exist in a vacuum. If someone's art does harm, directly or indirectly, they are not immune to responsibility for that harm.
SyskeBehard
Does that subsequently reduce the aesthetic value of the art though?
Aesthetic value is valued by its novelty. Since the resulting work is also novel, but in a different way, it has undergone both reduction and growth. Whether that is a net reduction depends on the viewer.
It is stupid. The one who is guilty is the one who did the crime, not the one who inspired the other to do so. If we say that artist is guilty why then we don't say that the guilty one is actually somebody else who inspired him to create the product of art? And then infinity of the guilty ones. Like all humanity history is guilty because you read this comment, then you may get angry and kill somebody. Lol
And here I thought Ａｅｓｔｈｅｔｉｃ were all about vaporwave and Ｍｅｍｅ
Chariots Chariots
and for that im gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN
with the LEMONS
Western Civilization was Precipitated on the Principles of Greek Egyptian Sumerian Babylonian language...Roman was Forced upon our World by Priest of the Catholic ordo... Priori is Key to Most Gnosis you seek,,,, Enoch a Door was open,, Jesus said He Knock The Door is Open,,, I Knock Every Door Opens says a Me.
w h o s a y s i t i s n t ?
Crash course is fun
4:41 "Art requires an interntional artist." But what about intentional artists?
That aside, considering that the sorts of cameras used by professional photographers, don't require much configuring by the photographer and have features such as autofocus, that allow for quality photos to be taken without any intent required on the part of the one handling the camera. So, no, Naruto is not the artist behind that photo, and can't claim copyright. Never mind, that the whole scenario begs the question, what would a monkey do with money?
only a percentage of the money; you know, for the trouble.
pirrepe I doubt the induvidual monkey would have gotten any real money, perhaps they would give him some prensents (chom choms offcourse) just to appease the people that are strict on it. I don't believe they had to truly believe that the animal had a right to copyright, just looking to exploit a legal loophole for the purpose of helping their organization, financially and for publicity.
Get elected president.
I watched this while eating a chom chom
Crying for the death of a character?
ONE WORD:
Hodor
Thank you very much for making this video, John Green and the others at _Crash Course_ Philosophy! This video has really made me thinking. I do believe art is necessary in our lives in order to be able to freely express emotion and that is art’s primary purpose but art that actually does some good and changes the world or the lives of people and/or targets the intellectual part of ourselves is to be valued a little bit higher, like this video should be valued a bit higher by most people than _PewDiePie_’s ‘KISSING MY GIRLFRIEND’ or ‘TOAD SHITS ON ME’. Thank you for making me reconsider my attitude towards art!
By the way, I do think both the monkey and the photographer are to be credited for those amazing images! 50/50 man!
Naruto? Who named them naruto?
lol weebs killing me over here. Naruto is a fish cake. the ninja is named after the same thing the monkey was. I know, joke, but it's a reeeeeeeeeally common comment and it hurts my soul. Naruto is so frickin' good, too. try it.
kagebugino gusu
@@lumen8341 What makes you think the monkey was named after the fish cake and not the character?
Nico Bellic also isn’t being named after a fish cake weirder than being named after a sentient character
Not going to lie, when this segment started I was like "Oh great, 'Art'. Who cares?" Now that the segment is over I am far more interested. Thanks Crash Course.
4:40 "Art requires an international artist."
7:40 "Our emotions don't have to correspond to external reality, in order for the emotions themselves to be real."
It's really, really hard not to connect that sentence to politics.
No goldfish were harmed in the making of this episode.
I love catharsis. There aren't a bunch of songs that can bring me to tears but there are a few I can go back to when I want to cry that do it for me, it's great.
Ａｅｓｔｈｅｔｉｃ Ｍｅｍｅ
When he said "Why do we waste so much time in shipping", I thought "to transport good? How is that relevant?" Took me a few seconds.
But can someone tell me why art/ beauty/ aesthetics are so attractive when it has no survival need...I'm talking about the beauty of things in general not just humans
I'm in the middle of writing a paper on literary aesthetics, so this is perfect!
*I CRY REAL TEARS BECAUSE DUMBLEDORE WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF MY CHILDHOOD YOU MONSTER*
How the fluff is putting fish in a blender immoral if we kill and eat them all the time?
my favorite crashcourse, great timing too!
I'm glad you included Harambe in this video.
In the republic Plato is not actually against art. He is describing a terrible state where everything is banned so he can make the point at the end of the republic that if everything is banned then the citizens will have no experience in life and will not be wise. In the symposium he talks about how artist are inspired by love and love is the greatest helper in seeing the Beautiful which is the Good, Truth, and God.
I just this guy so much. He talks fast, throws in a bunch of other subjects (that make part of the thought line), and one should not lose track of the main idea.
Thank you for being so helpful!
A S S T E S T I C L E S
Oh my god I've reached the point where he can say chom chom instead of banana and I didn't even blink
ba-na-na? I don't understand
Was it just my mind that when a different direction when he talked about voluntarily walking into a movie theatre clutching a box of tissues. It just got worse when he said the emotional purge that comes with the experience feels really, really good.
probably helps to think of PETA not as an activist group but as a group that proclaims that it is an activist for animal rights, but instead work against the animal (see the various reports about their euthanizing various household animals that couldn't be adopted) or for their own self-interest (I mean, let's be honest, WHO would be getting the profits from the sales of Naruto's photos?)
+
I think the profits should go to the park where he lived to promote conservation.
khesed Masashi Kishimoto
it's better to euthanize an animal that wouldn't be able to find a home than to make it spend its entire life in a cage.
If you start justifying killing as an alternative to suffering, where do you draw the line? Suffering is relative and without it, no being could ever experience relief or deliverance from suffering.
As an art maker, I appreciated this immensely. So much of this makes a lot of my decisions make more sense and give them more meaning when I make them.
Anyone else get the "Chom-Choms" reference at 5:19?
At 4:50 hank said 'intentional artist' but what was written was - International artist
I'm a little confused about Walton's "quasi emotion" argument. If he defines quasi-emotions as emotions felt in the context of fiction, isn't that kind of a tautological cop-out?
All he's doing is saying the "quasi-emotions" aren't emotions but he does nothing to explain what they are instead. It kind of feels like saying that the answer to an algebra problem is equal to a constant whose value is equal to the (unknown) solution: it just doesn't really progress the discussion.
Sure, we may react to equivalent emotions differently in the context of fiction vs reality, but can the same not be said of differing contexts that are equally real/false? (For example, using the horror movie analogy, you would react differently to a person breaking into your house versus a spider. Both cause fear but they do not have the same response.)
Psychologically, I imagine some of that comes down to us doing something interesting: the same way humans and some other animals play to practice adult skills in a safe environment, could art, then, be a form of mental play-behavior? (I should clarify that I meant "safe" for the viewer, the goldfish wouldn't call the blender thing art and the same could be said, as an example, for the "works" of Sander Cohen from the Bioshock games.)
What if why this feels really really good is that it renews our knowledge almost as prepare ourselves to be able to better understand and read others emotions and everything surrounding them to make decisions from there, from that which is being prepared to be a precise and as rounded as possible conclusion as to what is happening to another human on the emotional level.
What if it is strongly linked to the concept that some like to call 'emotional transport' and what i like to call Empathy
What can I do with a degree in philosophy? I'm a senior in high school and I'm applying for the colleges I want to go to, but I don't know what I want to do or major in. Im deeply interested in philosophy, theology and religion, as well as psychology and social sciences.
I feel like a major in philosophy is what I want, but I'm too afraid that it won't lead me to a particular career or field, maybe a teacher or lawyer? Or some field in science or theology? I don't really care how much I'll get paid, I just want to make sure that my love for philosophy will lead me into a field and will pay off, and I won't just spend years and thousands for a souped-up hobby.
Maybe I should major in psych or social work and a minor in philosophy.
You can pursuer carriers in law, journalism, psychology and consoling (which is what I'm doing, carries in law, teaching, etc. I had the same problem as you when I was applying for colleges but did know what I could do with a philosophy degree. It may be wise to duel major in something so your job opportunities are not cut short.
jordan w omg same. I'm in senior high too and have been so confused whether I'd pick psych or Philo but I suggest if you want to know more on apparent truth go for Psych because you can become a researcher and actually answer the questions that you ponder yourself on philosophy.
@@bluesteel1389 a psych B.A. is inferior to a Phil B.A. psych is only relevant if you go the PhD or psychiatry route, even the psychologist track is iffy. This is coming from a university senior who knows computer scientists and law students that did Phil in undergrad and has only one friend (rich international student) that went psych cause she isn't worried about ROI.
I'm an econ major so no horse in the race, but Phil in the US is more analytical than continental, you will work with logic and probability and counting and permutations and you might even work on induction. Some high level phil classes were objectively harder than some stats classes and shared much of the same material.
It should be of the pleasure of a poem itself to tell how it can. The figure a poem makes. It begins in delight and ends in wisdom. ~Robert Frost
the thumbnail makes me think war: what is it good for?
Yes!
planclops No! The answer is: absolutely nothing! Come on now!
I love how the dude under the word voyeur looks like Mr. Jefferson from Life is Strange.
Wait, the selfie monkey's name was Naruto?
I'm just imagining this otaku nature photographer like "This one's Rukia, and this one,s luffy, and, GUTS STOP SMASHING THINGS DAMNIT!"
This is such an amazing course. Thank you so much!
Now I feel like philosophy is so fascinating and important, and very helpful in my every day life!
"ART! (whoo, yeah) WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!" -Plato (probably)
if you get that reference we can be friends
sorry i dont get your reference but what are you referencing
lmao uhhh this isnt a reference to edwin starr is it
I can't get enough of this course, thanks to everyone who helped make this show
Love this series. I just started watching it a few days ago and am already, well, this far into it. But 2 episodes about Aesthetics and the role of morality in art without a single mention of Oscar Wilde? For shame!
Aside from that, great work.
"One of them would be willing to take his cut in Chom choms". Haha this is a masterpiece.
"why do we waste time shipping"
he said: "why do we invest time and energy in shipping?"
4:42 InteRntional? It's not a word but we all understand the indended meaning :P These videos are always fantastic, keep them coming!
how are you gonna pay naruto and i dont mean simply giving him chom choms
Im ASSUMING (don't quote me on this) that the money would go towards the preservation or protection of their jungle or a breeding program for his species or something.
+Kaan Ra
Via his swiss bank account of course
I'm sure Peta has a vested interesting in deciding how Naruto can spend his cash.
Yea, I think that Naruto should be compensated, at least in some way like providing his family with some bananas every now and then, but PETA should be left waaaaay out of it.
@@Stormaes what is banana? I know chom choms.
I present another ideology: Art isn’t inherently good or evil by itself, but it is created through human action and choice; the actions, choices and influence surrounding a work of art are inherently tied to morality, but the aesthetic appeal of art is dependent on the beholder.
Hi crashcourse, thank you again for an informative video. I'm still confused though about the distinction between the philosophy of aesthetics and the philosophy of art. From what I've read, what you're explaining in this video is more specifically gravitated towards the philosophy of arts and not (more generally) of aesthetics. I think this is quite an important distinction to begin with, because the philosophy of aesthetics itself hasn't reached a conclusion to whether or not it should only be concerned with the "arts" or - more broadly - of "beauty" and "taste".
It would be much appreciated if you could clarify this question. Thank you again :))
Banana joke call back never gets old. Chom-Choms!
Crash course: V A P O R W A V E
This would have been really great a year ago whilst I was studying a module of Philosophy and the Arts at uni! dammit!
So much love for this channel.
Me: trying to concentrate and learn the content
Also me everytime he says Plato: hehe play-doh :)
Ahh, I love John Green, but I also love Aristotle.... how can I live with that?
gijijijijijijijijijijji Yes.
gijijijijijijijijijijji but I love Hank Green, the presenter
Same problem. I just assume John is being hyperbolic. Aristotle was a nice guy. Couldn't wrestle well, but nice anyways.
Elvis Branchini This is Hank Green. John is his brother.
Johnny Nguyen I know, I was reffering to the frequent attacks that John throws at Aristotle.
Aestheticism is underrated yet most philosophers have had the experience or the tag. You guys need to make more vids on this. Thanks!
Why would the cops come for making a sushi smoothie?
cruelty to animals
That's a good question. I mean, it seems cruel to me, but blending a goldfish is not illegal.
Keep in mind, this was in Denmark, not the US. Animal cruelty laws change depending on what country you are in. In Sweden, it's actually illegal to buy only 1 rat. You have to buy him a buddy to live with or it's considered cruel. :)
Many places have distinctions on why the animal is being killed. If it is being done for pleasure to entertainment is it a crime. If it is being done for a practical reason it is not.
5:11 - There's chom-choms again.... 😂
Naruto just wanted to become Hokage... dammit PETA!
I love this series so much! Thank you for being so inspiring 😊
Are you calling my feelings towards all my husbandos 'quasi-emotions'? How dare you?
I would have loved it if this episode was even longer! Fascinating :)
"Why do we invest time and energy into shipping?"
I ask myself that same question everyday. 😐
Shipping raises some of the same questions as the Slater/Naruto case does. Because when you ship, you are in a sense taking ownership of these fictional characters -- characters you had no role in creating -- and having them behave in ways you would prefer rather than those preferred by the creator. Many shippers assume that just about every character ever written is on the LGBTQ spectrum without "canon" evidence. ("Canon" in this case refers to what is present in the original artwork the shipper takes inspiration from -- for example, it is canon in Steven Universe that Pearl had been completely fixated on her leader Rose Quartz for hundreds and thousands of years, while it is speculative that Peridot and Lapis are a couple, albeit a dysfunctional one.) Other shippers take friendships and advance them into romantic or sexual relationships. While many creators pay absolutely no attention to this, knowing it does not prevent them from writing those characters the way they choose, others are offended, while still others find them food for thought.
If the creator of the work does object to what you are doing, do you need to stop? Do you need to stop if future canon material contradicts your speculation? Who is the real creator of a piece of fanart or fanfiction?
~4:53
There's two questions here, who deserves the profit and does it count as art.
It seems obvious to me that legally the guy deserves the profit so I wont bother explaining why but rather (hopefully) answer the question of how artificial the picture is. Technically it wouldn't exist without mankind's intention to make a camera and the intention of this individual to use it to create images. However atypically the final cause of that specific image wasn't intended (at all really, when you realize Naruto couldn't have intended to create it). It's just incidental that it happened to be high quality. In the causal chain of events humans are by far the most responsible for it's existence so it's art.
Just here to be shitty and point the mistake at 4:42
"Interntional"
Thank you for your attention
We invest time and energy into shipping in order to transport goods over a long distance.
Ahhh i just can't get over how liberating this videos are
V A P O R W A V E
The question of whether art and morality can be connected is an absolute yes. To see this, all you must do is visualize an artist putting on display a human body, open, with his organs extracted, yet still connected, and the human still alive and conscious.
4:42 - 'interntional'? is that a sic?
Most likely a typo; r is next to e.
4:41 "Art requires an INTERNTIONAL artist." I can't tell if that was deliberate.
How could an animal own anything and why would it get any money? What could he do with it anyway?
6:22 this is the exact reason why I scream as loud as I can on roller coasters. I take full advantage
Knowledge
damn
Eric Vanbergen I know right
Such a brilliant concept. You should be an artist.
Well, I just binge watched that. No regrets.
The hypocrisy of shutting down the goldfish-blender exhibition is just superb in a civilization that eats mammals.