Logic or aesthetics - which one is more fundamental to human nature? Which one is the extension of another?

Yes I have. Logic, to me, is a form of art just like the rest of philosophy.

Will > Logic

how is aesthetics not predicated on logic?

What tune is geometric geometric entity playing?

Will breeds adherence to logic, mankind exhibits emergence and does not trend towards chaos

How is logic not predicated in aesthetics?

Aesthetics is founded in a logic not fully accessible to us, hence the necessity of the mystical arts

Logic is predicated upon consistency. Consistency is predicated upon finding patterns and laws that order reality in a beautiful, interconnected picture. Logic is nothing but an attempt to appreciate the beauty of reality.

So, logic comes from will, without will there is no logic, and will doesn't imply chaos, and what is considered chaos is a matter of context. Logic and context need will to matter.

Kant can be experienced as an aesthetic experience. There is someting beautiful in his thougt structures.

but surely, human cognition is the foundation for logic. cognition is limited to the confines of our senses and logic (which is why people love to sperg out at positivists). but this makes cognition a much more palpable set, dare I say e-empirical. isn't beauty an articulation of cognition, therefore making it one of its objects?

That that you call inaccessible could be whatever, why logic?

You are giving too much value to cognition in what is "human being"

>Consistency is predicated upon finding patterns and laws that order reality in a beautiful, interconnected picture. Logic is nothing but an attempt to appreciate the beauty of reality.
You're contradicting yourself, Logic is what is necessary in order to actually constitute patterns as beautiful or interconnected.
While consistency of intuition is necessary for those thoughts to be possible it is the thoughts themselves that produces such an interpretation of what is otherwise a meaningless manifold.

Aesthetics in that sense is merely a logical act.

Imagine that first humans. Do you think their initial ideas were more like
>the world around me pleases me, I'd like to investigate why
or
>the world around me is so gosh darn logical and mathematical, dem functions mane

Sense or interpretation of perception for meaning

Both are equally acts of logic, you're a class A-Brainlet if Logic to you is merely its analytic abstraction

I believe they were more like 'I'm hungry, I have various needs, the world is pretty confusing, let's build a narrative that gives me some semblance of control and prediction over it, even if it might be an illuson"

There is no perception before logical awareness of consciousness.

>cannot escape the 'humans are glorified robots' paradigm
Sad!

If a robot to you is a being that requires reason to experience then its literally impossible to be a conscious being without being a robot.

good post

>sad

wew lad, maybe build on the trump-tier/angry-feminist-tier discourse of yours

>Consistency is predicated upon finding patterns and laws that order reality in a beautiful, interconnected picture
There is nothing inherently beautiful about that picture. If you claim it's interconnected in an a priori sense, then you only do so predicated upon your logic.

Consciousness is an aggregated construct while perception is intrinsic awareness devoid of interpretation.

Logically defining symbiosis between two cells implies the autonomous nature of consciousness within the nucleus, when the driving force is within the wave function of a higher interconnected universality

Logic of aesthetics

It would seen to me that humans developed thier aesthetic notions originally by observing nature, reacting to the forms they find there copying them or even rebelling against them and altering them. We know that the forms of nature are predicated on the logic of science and that includes chaos, probability, fractals ects. The spiral of the shell, the patterns of the growth of leaves on trees, the stippled light that makes shadow on the ground, the motion of the waves and tides and stars, even seeing the round rock and making it into a cube. Mans place, knowing his infinite smallness in it early on made him an excellent and reverent observer of nature and the logic of natures aesthetics. Man emulated to those and preserved is understanding of his insignificance until it became socially beneficial to rebel against that understanding and exalt man to a place of importance near or equal to a god. Then the natural aesthetic progression was away from the forms of nature and towards the conquering of nature by manipulating and controlling the natural forms. An obelisk instead of a more basic monolith, a fluted column instead of a smooth round column. A synthesis of natural observable forms and manipulations of those logical forms became the aesthetic desire, friezes of rectangular stone with natural depictions of man and nature. Mans place in and part of nature but also above it. The aesthetic of man flows from and is informed the logic of nature. Human nature is both a product of the logic of nature and the aesthetic of nature. Trying to separate the two concepts when they are impossibly intertwined within us seems silly. Our mind cannot tell the difference. To look at a tree, or a sculpture of a tree, or a mathematical equation of all the forces and elements and genetics of the tree. Your mind is doing the same thing.

>while perception is intrinsic awareness devoid of interpretation.

Holyshit what

Most human beings would not even understand what those words mean. Again, you are giving cognition too much importance, human being is way more about impulse.

You're fumbling your conceptions, Consciousness is only an aggregate in physical composition which is irrelevant.
To experience consciousness by definition is the only true and necessary unified facet of existence.

>>Consciousness is an aggregated construct while perception is intrinsic awareness devoid of interpretation.
found the guy who never ever tried to analyse what he experiences

Nothing is lost, nothing is gained, everything is transformed. Two atoms collide, creating an element. The result is from the intrinsic awareness, basic perception of a complementary or completed function within a nature as component of a whole, instead of a merged consciousness of element or predicated separate logical nature of consciousness.

Again you're an imbecile, Logic isn't merely analytic cognition thats only its highest form. Most logic exists before active thought. It itself is as you say impulsive

Of course reason and logic are fundamental on the human experience, but the human experience is not 100% based on reason, not even close.

We can infer enough of this ground of reason to determine it is geometrical in nature

I once tried to write a proof of aesthetic objectivity using Bayes' Theorem, but I nearly went completely insane and decided to quit

You're such a pseud. I recommend you go read more if you think the physical mechanism of the emergence of consciousness is anyway relevant here. Maybe start with the Greeks.

>but the human experience is not 100% based on reason, not even close.

Duh if ya say so

But logic is not the only thing thats natural of the human being, there is other stuff too, and putting logic above all that other stuff is an arbitrary choice, based on will. When the human being is touched by some form of aesthetic beauty, there is no reason to asume that what is happening is a logical phenomenon.
Aesthetic > Logic
:^]

> When the human being is touched by some form of aesthetic beauty

not the user you're replying to, but you can't be serious

I'm not putting logic above anything here on the contrary I am putting it below everything because its the base of experience.
What is happening is happening there is happening only so far as you are apprehending it. Otherwise there is no beauty just if it can be spoken of at all the mere totality of phyical existence that can not even be distinguished as anything but a single object devoid of even the most fundamental positionality of time and space.

Using pure logic, explain why cute things are cute.

Yeah, thought so.

holy hell this thread is cancer

Serious is my second name, senpai
But maybe my parents were being ironic by giving me that name, or even at creating me, so I can't really tell if it was authentically serious, or 100% serious, so maybe you should ask that question to yourself.

I didn't get any (U)s.

I need to buy a gun and one bullet.

logic is necessity
aesthetics is free choice of necessity

Not to be cocky but it has logical explanation why we find things cute. But the definition depends on values of said thing.
You find a coloured brick "cute" for different reasons than an anime girl

Originally a reply to:

>There is no perception before logical awareness of consciousness.

The existence of physical mechanism cannot be autonomous from its own perception, otherwise it's just a massive à priori for the emergence of consciousness.

This is Presocratics and in disagreement with Presocratics actually who focused on one element as source of the universe. Rather one infinite element from a limitless source and for each element an opposite element, elements forever paired with their opposites are in a constant state of flux, trying to constantly get an upper hand over one another. Anaximander

what does that even mean

u

Obviously the answer is E T H I C S

I would be hesistant to reduce logic to a psychological symptom, but now that I think about it, I don't see any sort of account (biological or eery-metaphysical-mumbo-jumbo) that would have logic preceding aesthetic orientation (though I think we ought to be careful with how we're using "aesthetic" here). Also, whoever was saying Kant obviously didn't read him. If anything, Witty is closer to the "logic as supreme" view than Kant (just speaking within the scope of the philosophers I saw mentioned in this thread). Honestly, though, even your hard-boiled rationalists (except maybe Descartes) and even Plato would have some sort of operative will precede logic (by their world-view logic is just the magical means by which we perceive the nature of that will, or some of its derivatives i.e., forms, monads, the substance etc.)

... user, first you make the assumption that there are intrinsic aesthetic values for certain objects, then you proceed to assume that when a 'human being is touched' by such objects, said touching does not require decoding those objects.

surely, you need to attempt to prove these things.

notice me bhikku

what do you mean by aesthetic orientation then?

Aesthetic is the only thing that gives logic any meaning and value

you can't possibly think that your utterance has any meaning within the context of OP's question

The never implied that there are any objective aesthetic values, and you are implying that logic is the only way to decode things

yes I am, I think aesthetic values are predicated upon cognition and this has been observed.

do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, or are you merely declaring yourself agnostic on this matter?

>conflating cognition and logic
Whoa m8 thats a cool leap of STEM you got there

Cognition is a practice of logic, what is your issue?

t. ugly face

no

then you have completely misunderstood it

Emotion precedes reflection in the process of cognition, spergy

How can logicfags explain the fact that all things in life with no exception can be apprehended from aesthetic point of view, but not all could be understood logically?

Emotions are inherently logical presuppositions of desire. They have no existence outside their propositional identity.

Again you're misconstruing logic with analytic discourse, there is nothing in life itself that can not be logically apprehended as it would not be apprehended otherwise.

You're going to have to elaborate on how exactly emotions are "inherently logical."

They're logical in the sense they are propositional relations to phenomena.
This is emotions as they exist as actual self consciously designated experiences "This makes me happy" is an interpretive analysis of inner experience in which a cause and effect narrative has already been established.
Before that what becomes interpreted as emotion is mere aspect of the manifold of pleasure, pain or instinct which I would say is not emotion proper.

Aesthetics here means study of perceptions, not what is pleasant to the eye.

But saying "this makes me happy" is not the experience of actually being happy, it's a reflection on that experience. You seem to be saying that raw, thoughtless emotion (what I would call "emotion proper") is not emotion proper. When I say "this makes me happy," the logical conclusion of that statement is tautological: "I want to do it again," why, "because it makes me happy," and so on. Logical structures fall apart or become self-defeating at the essential level of felt pleasure.

>not understanding pleasure as causal
>missing its essential relational character

no1 is saying emotion isnt thoughtless. but that you recognize emotion is related to x is the product of thought, which requires logic (rules of thought) so as to 1. make anything intelligible, and 2. unify experience.

the idea that aesthetics could in any universe precede logic is laughable at best (though im not saying this is what *youre* saying, simply attacking the thread in general). logic isnt arbitrary, it is the study of the rules of thought.

>it's a reflection on that experience
>Logical structures fall apart or become self-defeating at the essential level of felt pleasure.

You're making too mistakes here.
Firstly misinterpreting this as an act of conscious analytic cognition and not a more fundamental of way of thinking which is pre-cognitive but just as much an act of logic.
For instance how do we know at a given moment that we are afraid or excited? Both experiences carry very similar phenomena, urgency to act, rising blood pressure and breathing, panic and so on.
Not one of these aspects being the emotions themselves.

Yet very quickly on say entering a room for a surprised party a person will register his shock as excitement. Why? Because in the interpretation of the event he combines that very manifold of reactive impulse with the designation of desirability of circumstance. As opposed to suddenly seeing an angry Rottweiler where the shock is then registered as fear.
Emotions in that sense are always an act of narrativizing phenomena into a single orientative state which was previously disparate array of biological sense and pre-established value designations.

Oh I forgot, the second mistake is that I am proposing that emotions are inherently rational which is incorrect, they are of course based on the mere contingency of our arbitrary biological and personal reality.

t. HAVEN'T READ THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT BUT STILL POPPING OFF AT THE MOUTH LIKE THE PSEUD BITCH THAT HE IS

OK, that's much clearer than your "this makes me happy" example because that seems to imply a necessarily linguistic structure to thought. Although I'm not entirely sure that your assessment of the fear-excitement dichotomy as a bifurcation of "shock" is accurate: the outward similarity of the emotions doesn't necessarily mean that they come from the same place. Not to say that your contextual account isn't accurate, but it needn't rely on this division: if the surprise party is truly a surprise, the person experiencing it will probably feel dread initially (alone in a dark room expecting something to happen), followed by shock (the lights go on and the yell is heard), followed again by excitement ("I am attending a party," etc.). "Shock" as necessarily preceding fear does not account for terror.

You did say that emotions are inherently rational here, though

you've misgrouped the terms and qualifiers. it's ('inherently'//'logical presuppositions') not ('inherently logical'//'presuppositions')

Ethics and aesthetics are one.

If it's inherently a logical presupposition, how is it not inherently logical? A logical presupposition has to be logical.

>everyone here falling into the myth of the given
hahahahahahaha

In the same way that the struts that hold a bridge up are not 'the bridge'.

But anyway, I think what was meant was that any given emotion, meaning in this case the signifier of the concept, can satisfy the argument of a logical proposition; it forms the 'content' of a one formal division of a statement.

>logical proposition

lol just 'proposition

What are you? fucking retarded? They share letters but you can't pull ethics out of aesthetics. There's like 3 letters in the way and you'd have to drop the a in the beginning

"The logical must be beautiful, but the beautiful need not be logical".

>gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf
>6.421
>It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed
>Ethics are transcendental
>(Ethics and aesthetics are one.)

Fag.

Autist.

I get that you're a fag and that was the question I asked, but I was also hoping you'd understand the rest if my post. Ethics and aesthetics share properties, such as letters, but it takes some major work to derive one from the other

Is it a pseud move to bring up that logic comes from the categorical left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex and aesthetic appreciation/emotion comes from the representational right? The majority of the world is left-brained as shown by the prevalence of right-handedness. Therefore I would agree with the anons who say that logic is more fundamental and that Kant was on the right track. Even our emotions and sensations are weighed against less abstract results in logical decisions. e.g If I am making the decision of whether I want to leave my current job to fill a position on the other side of the country with the same responsibilities but slightly higher pay or stay, I include my emotional connections to my friends and my distaste of the effort of moving as factors weighted with a similar rationale as the quantitative increase in income.
NATURALISM'S BACK, BABYYY

I mean, it's just a few keystrokes.

I took "inherently logical" to mean "necessarily using logic" in the same way a bridge necessarily uses struts, and once you clarified that you weren't trying to appeal to any notion of pure logic I agreed with you.

>You did say that emotions are inherently rational here

Rational in the sense they are a product of an act of reason. Not that they are logically consistent or can exist independent of experience