The explication of art and the art of explication (was: Arti

N.BOSTROM@lse.ac.uk
RU.W2@WP k A BytVh0iAuBt4Jhf ZhkyHZh}yS ]V[s1.W>+Date:

Alexander Chislenko wrote:

> I would agree that crack isn't an art form though the
>results may be enjoyable. I would attribute this to the
>fact that the role of human action here is just to get the
>drug---

Yes, but now I am no longer sure exactly what the definition
(analysis) you propose is. It would be helpful if you could
express it in the form:

x is art if, and only if, x ---.

What you write in place of the "---" should be (1) clear
(ideally a physical formula, but that is obviously beyond
reach in this case), (2) informative (e.g. not --- = "is
art"), and (3) agree with the notion you are trying to
define (no counterexamples).

If you are not out for a conceptual analysis but rather for
an explication, then condition (3) can be somewhat relaxed
but there will be a new condition to consider: (4) the
explicandum should be interesting or useful.

>I wonder if any of these topics have been covered by "real"
>philosophers.

You bet. I'm not knowledgable in the phil of art, however.
My guess is that some kind of concensus might have emerged
that the notion of art is a so called family concept, so
that no consise definition is possible. But then again,
maybe there is an essential core that you could think out -I
believe, for example, that I have discovered a nice
explication of the notion of a paranormal phenomenon (like
true psychokinesis etc.)

>What are the philosophers doing these days, anyway?

All sorts of things, except thinking about the future. One
exception is John Leslie with his recent book The End of the
World. I believe, however, that his main argument is flawed.