the ideal community: alternatives to the industrial city
A big concern of modern architects was not to design one building but to design a whole city. Particularly the holistic design would pay attention to working class buildings which many architects and city planners felt were being ignored.
Some wanted to break up a city into manageable sizes and include lots of green spaces. There were also plans to turn the city grid into a linear shape.
One big problem was the living spaces for the working class. Some wanted one large building to house workers. It would promote a communal space but it was doomed to be repetitious.
In the end, the ability to build a city from scratch didn't materialize and much of theories were left unpracticed.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch13
skyscrapper and suburb: the u.s.a. between the wars
The Chicago Tribune competition raised question of what a 'beautiful' modern building would be. There wasn't a consensus and left many architects scratching their heads. This illustrates the larger picture that although modern architecture was dipping it's toes in the water, there wasn't a library of forms to choose from. Much of what was an appropriate look needed to be invented.
Skyscrapers appeared in the early 20th century in the economic boom following the great depression. Their size was intimidating especially at a time where they weren't surrounded by other skyscrapers. Their forms suggested nihilistic temples to capitalism. Their form seemed to be subservient to regional vernaculars or sensibilities of the European avant-guard.
Wright's architecture also was analogous with the times. Instead of making forms that would identify as an archetypal house, he began building from his own fascination with ancient temples and such. In a way celebrating aristocratic power in a time where wealth was being concentrated to a small amount of people.
The Chicago Tribune competition raised question of what a 'beautiful' modern building would be. There wasn't a consensus and left many architects scratching their heads. This illustrates the larger picture that although modern architecture was dipping it's toes in the water, there wasn't a library of forms to choose from. Much of what was an appropriate look needed to be invented.
Skyscrapers appeared in the early 20th century in the economic boom following the great depression. Their size was intimidating especially at a time where they weren't surrounded by other skyscrapers. Their forms suggested nihilistic temples to capitalism. Their form seemed to be subservient to regional vernaculars or sensibilities of the European avant-guard.
Wright's architecture also was analogous with the times. Instead of making forms that would identify as an archetypal house, he began building from his own fascination with ancient temples and such. In a way celebrating aristocratic power in a time where wealth was being concentrated to a small amount of people.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch12
architecture and revolution in russia
Russia was similar to Germany between the wars. Architects were dreamers who's ideas mainly stayed on paper. But Russia was not only digesting how to make forms out of new materials, it was trying to make these new forms reflect the revolutionary lifestyle that didn't exist yet.
Experiementers largely favored a machine look and also in creating a building that was dynamic and had motion. Litterally moving parts of the building.
The Russian architects were not as successful as their bourgousie european neighbors at making forms explemplifying the communual lifestyle they hoped for. Russian modern architects might not had enough time to fully build up a mature language. When Russia started leaning towards authoritarian rule, the architectural trends turned away from modernism. The totalitarian rulers favored architecture with very direct symbolism and was somewhat familiar with the past.
Russia was similar to Germany between the wars. Architects were dreamers who's ideas mainly stayed on paper. But Russia was not only digesting how to make forms out of new materials, it was trying to make these new forms reflect the revolutionary lifestyle that didn't exist yet.
Experiementers largely favored a machine look and also in creating a building that was dynamic and had motion. Litterally moving parts of the building.
The Russian architects were not as successful as their bourgousie european neighbors at making forms explemplifying the communual lifestyle they hoped for. Russian modern architects might not had enough time to fully build up a mature language. When Russia started leaning towards authoritarian rule, the architectural trends turned away from modernism. The totalitarian rulers favored architecture with very direct symbolism and was somewhat familiar with the past.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch11
walter gropius, german expressionism and the bauhaus
The time after world war one led to an intense period of thought. The economy in Germany was in bad shape and not suitable to finance new building projects. There architects had to settle for models of their ideas knowing they wouldn't go on to be realized.
Because their buildings wouldn't go on to be buildings, a spiritual mentality took place. In fact some architecture teachers taught like gurus and encouraged meditation and so forth. The machine was also downgraded and placed subordinate to nature.
This is also the time the Bauhaus came to be. It was proposed to stop the artistic vacuum happening in German society because of the after effects of the war. It focused on the building to be the end of all arts.
The fruits of this school would be ostracized by German politics and ultimately shut it down. But the experimentation done there would prime some important modern architects for important works. They fled from oppression and dispersed away from Germany.
The time after world war one led to an intense period of thought. The economy in Germany was in bad shape and not suitable to finance new building projects. There architects had to settle for models of their ideas knowing they wouldn't go on to be realized.
Because their buildings wouldn't go on to be buildings, a spiritual mentality took place. In fact some architecture teachers taught like gurus and encouraged meditation and so forth. The machine was also downgraded and placed subordinate to nature.
This is also the time the Bauhaus came to be. It was proposed to stop the artistic vacuum happening in German society because of the after effects of the war. It focused on the building to be the end of all arts.
The fruits of this school would be ostracized by German politics and ultimately shut it down. But the experimentation done there would prime some important modern architects for important works. They fled from oppression and dispersed away from Germany.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch10
le corbusier's quest for ideal form
Le corbusier was not interested in throwing out the past. Much inspired by it, he advocated taking the zest of it into a modern form. He respected buildings such as the parthenon as pinicale of a building form. One that brought an advanced language of the time together.
He was compelled to make large scheme designs where communities of people live in one area designed by him. Largely he had to compromise for the obvious reason that such grand schemes require people to comply and fund them. Most of his commissions were mostly wealthy people without the desire to fill their houses with lots of stuff. The houses were complete by themselves but showed signs they were just experiments that could be done on a larger scale.
The start of Le Corbusier's language is geometry. In isolation geometry is the basic unit of a language. Shapes mean nothing on their own but put in a cluster some thematic elements arrive based on their relation to others.
While he respected the past, there were traditional elements of building that were turned on it's head. Particular his diminution of the base of the building. Typically this is where the most functional rooms were like the kitchen. It was also where buildings were the most sturdiest. But Le Corbusier understated this part picturing a modern city where this space will be used to for things like traffic.
His approach to design praised function and economy as well as giving content. Especially in contrasting urban and rural aspects of houses.
Le corbusier was not interested in throwing out the past. Much inspired by it, he advocated taking the zest of it into a modern form. He respected buildings such as the parthenon as pinicale of a building form. One that brought an advanced language of the time together.
He was compelled to make large scheme designs where communities of people live in one area designed by him. Largely he had to compromise for the obvious reason that such grand schemes require people to comply and fund them. Most of his commissions were mostly wealthy people without the desire to fill their houses with lots of stuff. The houses were complete by themselves but showed signs they were just experiments that could be done on a larger scale.
The start of Le Corbusier's language is geometry. In isolation geometry is the basic unit of a language. Shapes mean nothing on their own but put in a cluster some thematic elements arrive based on their relation to others.
While he respected the past, there were traditional elements of building that were turned on it's head. Particular his diminution of the base of the building. Typically this is where the most functional rooms were like the kitchen. It was also where buildings were the most sturdiest. But Le Corbusier understated this part picturing a modern city where this space will be used to for things like traffic.
His approach to design praised function and economy as well as giving content. Especially in contrasting urban and rural aspects of houses.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch7
the architectural system of frank lloyd wright
Turn of the century Chicago saw an influx of middle class businessmen. Frank Lloyd Wright would solidify an architecture for these people. His clients wanted an aesthetic that matched their lifestyle: a contrast of economy with with wealth.
Wrights work consisted mainly in houses so his architectural metaphors spoke of the domestic life. These houses were primarily suburban and emphasized a detachment from the urban city to something more pastoral. His key motifs were the central fire place and the horizontal lay out.
The fire place is a very old motif that may have lost its ritual importance by the early modern period, but none the less still translated as a metaphor for domestic life.
The language of tall office buildings were about being vertical. The horizontal layout was a hallmark of the house. It allowed easy access to the whole house and suggested simplicity. It was well embraced as a template for an appropriate house.
Turn of the century Chicago saw an influx of middle class businessmen. Frank Lloyd Wright would solidify an architecture for these people. His clients wanted an aesthetic that matched their lifestyle: a contrast of economy with with wealth.
Wrights work consisted mainly in houses so his architectural metaphors spoke of the domestic life. These houses were primarily suburban and emphasized a detachment from the urban city to something more pastoral. His key motifs were the central fire place and the horizontal lay out.
The fire place is a very old motif that may have lost its ritual importance by the early modern period, but none the less still translated as a metaphor for domestic life.
The language of tall office buildings were about being vertical. The horizontal layout was a hallmark of the house. It allowed easy access to the whole house and suggested simplicity. It was well embraced as a template for an appropriate house.
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch6
responses to mechanization: the deutscher werkbund and futurism
Unlike it's American counter part, Germany and Italy romanticized the factory in the early days of modernization. They didn't need to sort out how to make a vernacular for a warehouse, they needed to sort out how to elevate it as a worshiping space. Both of these civilizations felt these buildings would build the future and the buildings form needed to reflect that.
Unlike it's American counter part, Germany and Italy romanticized the factory in the early days of modernization. They didn't need to sort out how to make a vernacular for a warehouse, they needed to sort out how to elevate it as a worshiping space. Both of these civilizations felt these buildings would build the future and the buildings form needed to reflect that.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch5
arts and crafts ideals in britain and the u.s.a.
Britain had a somewhat unusual early modern period. Like the Art Nouveau style, the arts and craft movement found in England emphasized a local style. Not only in vernacular but also in material local to the area. The architecture praised a simple domestic life and largely relevant to wealthy home owners.
There were many admirers of the style, but one of its charms was it's resistance to standardized materials that would put the laborer out of business. It's proponents praised it's ability to reason what was important and necessary against a tide of fashion willing to corrupt stable ways of living.
Britain had a somewhat unusual early modern period. Like the Art Nouveau style, the arts and craft movement found in England emphasized a local style. Not only in vernacular but also in material local to the area. The architecture praised a simple domestic life and largely relevant to wealthy home owners.
There were many admirers of the style, but one of its charms was it's resistance to standardized materials that would put the laborer out of business. It's proponents praised it's ability to reason what was important and necessary against a tide of fashion willing to corrupt stable ways of living.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch4
rationalism, the engineering tradition and reinforced concrete
Concrete is a litmus test for early modern architects who advocated that a building's form should arise from the material it is made out of. Any shape was conceivable with concrete.
Yet the motif of the rectangle was successful in concrete regardless of its other possibilities. The rectangle seemed to connect with the modern unconscious in a way that was not just material or process.
Concrete is a litmus test for early modern architects who advocated that a building's form should arise from the material it is made out of. Any shape was conceivable with concrete.
Yet the motif of the rectangle was successful in concrete regardless of its other possibilities. The rectangle seemed to connect with the modern unconscious in a way that was not just material or process.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch3
The search for new forms and the problem of ornament
Art Nouveau obviously contrasts from the Chicago School. The aim or Art Nouveau was not to decorate buildings of commerce. It was concerned with homes, municipal buildings, religious places, etc. To use modern building material and technique was a bit more subversive since there were traditions to making these structures.
Nature is emphasized in Art Nouveau but the emphasis could be misleading. The essence of Art Nouveau, in most cases, was to rebel against the past and not to glorify nature. Trying to grab content from the spindly decoration would be like saying Mohawks glorify upright hair. The nature motif seemed prolific because it stood out.
Although Art Nouveau was in one way rebellious, it was also rooted in the past. Unlike Art Nouveau, The Chicago Style had little tradition and so buildings stood on their own and often their language described the building itself. On the other hand, in stark contrast, the architect Gaudi enfused metaphysical metaphors similarly to gothic cathedrals. The Chicago School symbolized the frame with the frame. Gaudi used the frame to symbolize motifs such as material being used to describe the spiritual in allegory like how cathedral ceilings are made to symbolize heaven.
But not all Art Nouveau was as allegorical as Gaudi. In many ways it a distilled version of using past traditions that have lost their meaning. Architects that rebelled against Art Nouveau rid decorative elements in design. Yet this two was not the same as the Chicago School. It was more a reaction to the Art Nouveau than making the structure aware of it's structure.
Art Nouveau obviously contrasts from the Chicago School. The aim or Art Nouveau was not to decorate buildings of commerce. It was concerned with homes, municipal buildings, religious places, etc. To use modern building material and technique was a bit more subversive since there were traditions to making these structures.
Nature is emphasized in Art Nouveau but the emphasis could be misleading. The essence of Art Nouveau, in most cases, was to rebel against the past and not to glorify nature. Trying to grab content from the spindly decoration would be like saying Mohawks glorify upright hair. The nature motif seemed prolific because it stood out.
Although Art Nouveau was in one way rebellious, it was also rooted in the past. Unlike Art Nouveau, The Chicago Style had little tradition and so buildings stood on their own and often their language described the building itself. On the other hand, in stark contrast, the architect Gaudi enfused metaphysical metaphors similarly to gothic cathedrals. The Chicago School symbolized the frame with the frame. Gaudi used the frame to symbolize motifs such as material being used to describe the spiritual in allegory like how cathedral ceilings are made to symbolize heaven.
But not all Art Nouveau was as allegorical as Gaudi. In many ways it a distilled version of using past traditions that have lost their meaning. Architects that rebelled against Art Nouveau rid decorative elements in design. Yet this two was not the same as the Chicago School. It was more a reaction to the Art Nouveau than making the structure aware of it's structure.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch2
Industrialization and the city: the skyscrapper as type and symbol
The modern building language started with commerce buildings. Commerce benefited from being large and concentrated and would be the first to test out the necessary parts to make this possible.
Large buildings such as warehouses and office buildings would stretch how far it would be feasible to use past building techniques, particularly masonry. When it was unfeasible the traditions were tossed out.
The structure of standardized steel beams started to influence the rectangular shape. Once architects realized this form, the repeated shape was more than just a shape but the idea of the shape. Architects would play with this shape even when it was not essential to the building. It was the idea that it was essential.
The modern building language started with commerce buildings. Commerce benefited from being large and concentrated and would be the first to test out the necessary parts to make this possible.
Large buildings such as warehouses and office buildings would stretch how far it would be feasible to use past building techniques, particularly masonry. When it was unfeasible the traditions were tossed out.
The structure of standardized steel beams started to influence the rectangular shape. Once architects realized this form, the repeated shape was more than just a shape but the idea of the shape. Architects would play with this shape even when it was not essential to the building. It was the idea that it was essential.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Modern Arch Since 1900 Ch1
The Idea of a Modern Architecture in the Nineteenth Century
Around the turn of the 19th century there was a great restlessness in architecture. Many architects felt buildings were mere replicas from past cultures. New functions as well as new buildings materials and construction intensified a search for relevancy. Architects could not look to the past to solve certain problems. There was a desire and necessity to create architecture that would speak for a new age.
Architects followed certain prejudices. A camp of them advocating a one over the other.
Around the turn of the 19th century there was a great restlessness in architecture. Many architects felt buildings were mere replicas from past cultures. New functions as well as new buildings materials and construction intensified a search for relevancy. Architects could not look to the past to solve certain problems. There was a desire and necessity to create architecture that would speak for a new age.
Architects followed certain prejudices. A camp of them advocating a one over the other.
- natural science - Some advocated that the materials and structure would suffice to be studied alone, disregarding any decoration or symbolic language. It also proposed that things would evolve like living creatures.
- spiritualism - There was a notion that forms of buildings will be part inspired by nature but the form will be this spiritual manifestation imposed on the building material.
Instead of natural phenomena, some where infatuated with past civilizations. One picks a particular style and rejects all others. In many cases this was because one favored a particular culture. The idea would be to replicate the building style in order to inject that culture's way of thinking into current society. - Mathematics - Abstract patterns and symmetry would be fleshed out onto the materials. Not because it is necessary for the structure but for the sake of the abstract representation of abstract thought.
Some advocated an approach based on chance but set in some limits. Building elements from many cultures would be compiled into one language. This method would be a free for all where elements of buildings would exist not for a particular reason but in many sense an arbitrary decision of the architect to place it there.
These modes of thinking were still just approaches. None of them as of yet had a robust portfolio. Their manifestations were still to come.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Metaphysics book4 c2
Any thing that can be studied will involve being. And independent beings will have a list of incidental parts that exist because of the independent thing. The philosophy of thinghood rests in independent things. Knowledge of the independent thing is primary to it's incidental attributes. Philosophy will also have many ways to discuss being such as examining opposites; however, opposites do not cause being. Saying opposites cause being proposes opposites are primary to being.
An independent thing is not incidentally an independent thing. Or it might be better put, the fact that it is independent is not incidental. Considering something as an independent thing is as primary as reason goes and is what all incidental things spring from. Expressing this idea in language can be deceiving because words might suggest that being is an attribute of 'one-ness' if we say being is one and not many parts. But the being is not the words. The words are referring to the being in a backwards way (i.e. being is primary to the knowledge of grammar).
An independent thing is not incidentally an independent thing. Or it might be better put, the fact that it is independent is not incidental. Considering something as an independent thing is as primary as reason goes and is what all incidental things spring from. Expressing this idea in language can be deceiving because words might suggest that being is an attribute of 'one-ness' if we say being is one and not many parts. But the being is not the words. The words are referring to the being in a backwards way (i.e. being is primary to the knowledge of grammar).
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Metaphysics book 4 c1
This states the purpose of what's to be discussed. The goal is to examine being without focusing on particulars. And to do this one much examine the first cause. Otherwise what ever knowledge we dredge up would be of the particular.
Metaphysics book3 c2
There is a lengthy discussion on whether one needs particular knowledge of an art to discuss the first cause with-in the art's framework.
The argument seems to be against this. First knowledge of first causes is discredited in mathematics. Mathematics deal with 'things' that are immaterial and motionless. The first cause which gives the source of motion cannot be understood by a mathematical art.
Then there is a discussion about arts that study nature. Since nature is material, it does not have the causes in it. Demonstrative knowledge of nature would just demonstrate knowledge of particulars rather than the whole deal.
Or I'm going to skip ahead. It seems like these questions will be addressed later. And I'm not making heads or tails of this.
The argument seems to be against this. First knowledge of first causes is discredited in mathematics. Mathematics deal with 'things' that are immaterial and motionless. The first cause which gives the source of motion cannot be understood by a mathematical art.
Then there is a discussion about arts that study nature. Since nature is material, it does not have the causes in it. Demonstrative knowledge of nature would just demonstrate knowledge of particulars rather than the whole deal.
Or I'm going to skip ahead. It seems like these questions will be addressed later. And I'm not making heads or tails of this.
Metaphysics book3 c1
Chapter 1 serves to bring up questions that need to be answered and what presumably the book will address later on.
There are many to list, but here are some highlights:
There are many to list, but here are some highlights:
- Whether philosophy can be its own art or if it requires the knowledge of all the arts.
- Is it necessary to study the whole being or also consider it's attributes
- Whether an immaterial cause is possible
- If we call something a being, is it the same as just calling it 1 thing
Metaphysics book2
Book two explains that what happens afterwards is not describing nature. What will be discussed is immaterial and since it cannot be sensed, it can only be made clear by close reasoning. Aristotle also admits it will get knick-picky, but also states there is no alternative to such a topic.
Metaphysics book1 c4-10
Aristotle begins a family tree of arts related to reason.
Natural Science
Religion
Mathematics
~~Plato's Forms~~
Philosophy
The end, philosophy, is the best way to assess being while at the same time being the most abstract art of reason.
Natural Science credits material as the source for something to exist. While the material may exist, it was not what caused something to exist. Natural Science is largely pointing to things that can be sensed, seeing they exist, and jumping to the conclusion that what is sensed caused it's existence. (Natural Science also resembles a form of art based on necessity.)
Religion happens when one considers material to be insufficient to cause being. In it, the cause of being is abstract but largely focuses on an attribute that is not sense. For instance, consider a hot fire. A Natural Scientist would say fire is caused by the material that is on fire. Religious reasoning would say the Hotness of the fire is the cause of the fire. But the term religion becomes apparent when using good/bad to denote causality.
Yet, listing an abstract attribute of nature does not cause being any more than a material attribute. But Religious reasoning is a step closer to Philosophy than Natural Science.
The next step up is Mathematics. Math still dabbles in attributes but in abstraction. Understanding this requires a look at numbers. Numbers are somewhat universal attributes that can be applied to anything. A fire can not be considered cold but both a fire and an ice cube can be considered 1 thing. Math may be the most abstract form of reasoning mentioned yet, but it seems logical that a number does not cause existence and is still yet an attribute of something that has already been caused.
Plantonic Forms get dangerously close to philosophy. The idea, more or less, is that we address reality through ideals. So, thus far, the first form of reason that addresses thought as a cause. Platonic Forms also mirror Psychology a great deal. But the study of thought is not Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of first causes.
There are problems just considering Platonic Forms as the first cause of existence. Having the ability to link ideal things with things from sense perception will not cause itself. There has to be a source of motion.
This whole discussion seems to be in order to get all of this out of the system. So far, the discussion has been describing what Philosophy is not.
Natural Science
Religion
Mathematics
~~Plato's Forms~~
Philosophy
The end, philosophy, is the best way to assess being while at the same time being the most abstract art of reason.
Natural Science credits material as the source for something to exist. While the material may exist, it was not what caused something to exist. Natural Science is largely pointing to things that can be sensed, seeing they exist, and jumping to the conclusion that what is sensed caused it's existence. (Natural Science also resembles a form of art based on necessity.)
Religion happens when one considers material to be insufficient to cause being. In it, the cause of being is abstract but largely focuses on an attribute that is not sense. For instance, consider a hot fire. A Natural Scientist would say fire is caused by the material that is on fire. Religious reasoning would say the Hotness of the fire is the cause of the fire. But the term religion becomes apparent when using good/bad to denote causality.
Yet, listing an abstract attribute of nature does not cause being any more than a material attribute. But Religious reasoning is a step closer to Philosophy than Natural Science.
The next step up is Mathematics. Math still dabbles in attributes but in abstraction. Understanding this requires a look at numbers. Numbers are somewhat universal attributes that can be applied to anything. A fire can not be considered cold but both a fire and an ice cube can be considered 1 thing. Math may be the most abstract form of reasoning mentioned yet, but it seems logical that a number does not cause existence and is still yet an attribute of something that has already been caused.
Plantonic Forms get dangerously close to philosophy. The idea, more or less, is that we address reality through ideals. So, thus far, the first form of reason that addresses thought as a cause. Platonic Forms also mirror Psychology a great deal. But the study of thought is not Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of first causes.
There are problems just considering Platonic Forms as the first cause of existence. Having the ability to link ideal things with things from sense perception will not cause itself. There has to be a source of motion.
This whole discussion seems to be in order to get all of this out of the system. So far, the discussion has been describing what Philosophy is not.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Metaphysics Book1 c3
So now that we're freaking out. Captain Aristotle has told us to be philosophers we need to ask 'are things what they appear to be'. We wanna be philosophers. So we ask the question. Now what's next, captain?
Remember, philosophy is also concerned with what causes things.
Yeah, we remember that. But err.....
Okay lets take flash back.
Sounds fun.
The first step a philosopher takes is to look around him. Material must be cause of everything. Like with out water, we'd die. So logically water must cause our existence. Something like that.
Well sure. I'm doing that now. What am I doing wrong?
Do you like wood or bronze?
Yeah sure, why do you ask?
Well do those things make stuff from themselves?
No. Probably not. What's left to do then Captain?
Well I bet the next step is to assume things are put into motion by some sort of intelligence.
Great. I'm thinking that right now. Tell me when we're done with the flashback.
Remember, philosophy is also concerned with what causes things.
Yeah, we remember that. But err.....
Okay lets take flash back.
Sounds fun.
The first step a philosopher takes is to look around him. Material must be cause of everything. Like with out water, we'd die. So logically water must cause our existence. Something like that.
Well sure. I'm doing that now. What am I doing wrong?
Do you like wood or bronze?
Yeah sure, why do you ask?
Well do those things make stuff from themselves?
No. Probably not. What's left to do then Captain?
Well I bet the next step is to assume things are put into motion by some sort of intelligence.
Great. I'm thinking that right now. Tell me when we're done with the flashback.
Metaphysics Book1 c2
Chapter 2 gives us as much assurance that Ishmael should have of Captain Ahab. Captain Aristotle first told us a philosopher knows all things (in a way that's possible). Yet, he says that philosophy starts from wondering whether things are what they seem....
So now we philosophers has opened a can of worms. We've asked the big one. And now Captain Aristotle what should we do?
Bravely run away from ignorance of the big one. See more in chapter 3....
So now we philosophers has opened a can of worms. We've asked the big one. And now Captain Aristotle what should we do?
Bravely run away from ignorance of the big one. See more in chapter 3....
Metaphysics Book1 c1
This chapter gives a family tree. At the end of the family tree is Philosophy.
perception + memory = experience
experience + reason = Arts
contemplative arts + leisure = Wisdom
Wisdom is analogous to philosophy. It is the art of knowing first causes. To understand this better, lets look at the comparison between Art and Experience.
Experience is working at a problem without knowing how to solve it. Somewhat similar but boldly different, art is a reasoned account in solving a problem that has already been solved. The main difference is someone with knowledge knows the cause of the problem.
Philosophy extracts from Art it's essential juices: the first cause and origins. But of what? The answer starts in chapter 2.
perception + memory = experience
experience + reason = Arts
contemplative arts + leisure = Wisdom
Wisdom is analogous to philosophy. It is the art of knowing first causes. To understand this better, lets look at the comparison between Art and Experience.
Experience is working at a problem without knowing how to solve it. Somewhat similar but boldly different, art is a reasoned account in solving a problem that has already been solved. The main difference is someone with knowledge knows the cause of the problem.
Philosophy extracts from Art it's essential juices: the first cause and origins. But of what? The answer starts in chapter 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
