I genuinely believe that art, observations and creativity is more valuable than the goals they might accomplish. To put it simply, I believe the ideal status quo is a society that exists to make art, rather than art that exists for a society.
I can't justify this, because values are pretty fundamentally arbitrary from my perspective, it is just what I find to be the most worthy endeavor.
Is there a name for worldviews similar to this?
It's called being a N.E.E.T.
But jokes aside you will never convince me that art is more valuable then a working sanitation system or modern medical knowledge.
I still respect your belief though. It's nice.
This. I think this can at least be justified through some appeal to human nature. I'm too tired to make this rigorous, and am probably leaving myself open to all kinds of counters I'm not up for anticipating, but
It's not coincidence that every society on earth has created art, history, and philosophy. Since the stone age, as soon as our days labor was done, we've taken them up again and again.
People wonder how we can justify persuing these things in a modern economy, but I wonder how a modern economy which creates so much can justify not pursuing what we thought was important when we had to worry about Smilodon attacks.
A working sanitation system is great because it facilitates the condition needed for great works.
I can see inherent value in art, it satisfies me. I can not see inherent value in sanitation, sanitation is simply an obstacle, not a goal.
>Surely these things are only valuable if put towards some goal.
The goal of continued existence. A universal one.
>A sanitation system in Antarctica is no good
I don't think the people of McMurdo Station would agree with that.
> nor is modern medical knowledge blasted into the sun
I don't follow.
>I can see inherent value in art, it satisfies me.
I wish I could enjoy art, but it does nothing for me.
>I can not see inherent value in sanitation, sanitation is simply an obstacle, not a goal.
The inherent value of sanitation is an over all improvement to quality of life.
Death and illness an obstacle, and a world without said afflictions is the goal. But I feel this argument is a more semantic one. Allow me to restate my point as follows.
Any human society will have a higher quality of life if focus is directed at combating death and disease instead of creating great works of art.
Or in short, A sanitation system will improve every community members quality of life, because death and illness are universal human problem. A great work of art will not create the same quality of life improvement.
I'd agree with both, why not say that observations and creativity are more valuable than the goals they might accomplish, whilst simultaneous saying that say scientific endeavours are more valuable than the goals they accomplish, as well as for the goals they do accomplish. I'm trying to say why one or the other rather than both, even if you dedicate yourself to one, still being able to acknowledge the other?
And I don't see any inherent value in art.
It really just comes down to us being different people with different value systems.
Your worldview is still focused on trying to do what you think will make the world a better place, so I think it's nice.
I'm actually a stemfag, and the same criticism is levels at plenty of fields, palaeontology as an example. And I do think something like palaeontology should be 'pursued for it's own sake.
>even if you dedicate yourself to one, still being able to acknowledge the other?
Even though I don't understand OP's world view, I don't resent it.
Ancient man did not understand the importance of the Honey Bee, but he did not try to eliminate it, and he still benefited from its work. Had he done so, he would have harmed himself in ways he was not even aware of.
I'm sure my life in better because of art in ways i'm not aware of just because I can look around me and see people who do enjoy art in ways I can not.
Even though my ideal society is one that dedicates it's self to the elimination of death and illness I know the way to achieve that goal is not to blindly dedicate our efforts to the elimination of death and illness. Paradoxical yes, but I could go on and on and this is the shortest way I can sum it up.
>We will once reach a point where there is no death or suffering.
Do you really believe this? Suffering is relative and unavoidable, no matter what you do.
Death is also unavoidable. Sure we can keep prolonging and guarding life but it will never be enough.
Who cares that I live 500 years if most of them are spent drudging for the good of man kind?
Its obvious that we as humans need a balance between striving for improvement of our physical conditions, with investment in the experience of present every day life, this means art.
Not making identical soviet utilitarian buildings but design them to look interesting and pleasing to our senses.
ART is an every day experience and art has been politicized by power structures, private and public.
This is not the elitist private glorified art of the aristocracy. We are living in a society of art for the masses.
This means that we cant just let blockbuster movies and commercials brainwash us into stagnation. We have to use these same tools to expose the weaker and suffering sides of our lives and gain the political power to make life better.
Stop thinking of art in 18th century terms and join us in the present please.
Not that guy, but art has been always been politicized by power structures. People just recognize it more today because more educated people exist outside of the elite class (middle classes, intelligentsia, whatever you want to call it) than ever before. Baroque art, to take one example, is considered beautiful but it had an explicit political purpose of promoting a conception of hierarchy that was integral to counter-reformation catholicism. The civic architecture of the italian city-states or early modern cities served a similar purpose.
Popular/mass art has always existed too, at least since the invention of the printing press in Europe.
Something shocking or new can be beautiful.
Besides, while I agree that beauty is an aspect of art, we live in a very different world today, than the world that Michelangelo or Bernini lived in.
Art today needs to represent something that we can relate to.
The realization of it is what made art what it is today. We cannot disregard what we now know of how art influences society and interacts with ideology.
Nothing from the past can be compared to the power of Cinema and TV on the way we perceive our society.
>Is there a name for worldviews similar to this?
Yes, its called being an involuntary egoist
We typically conceive of philosophy unfolding from metaphysics or epistemology and ending in aesthetics.
This is not the only approach. The Greeks, since they felt the good was eternal and bound up with God and mathematics/logic, took beauty as an idea very seriously.
But your view seems to be a political ideal founded on aesthetics, which is not typical in western philosophy but its certainly found in, say, Classical Islamic societies.
Everything, from streets to Mosques to gates and books, was made to be beautiful. In Islam God is beauty and he loves beauty, and art is not a mere form of personal expression but an act of contemplation of the divine.