A stack of theses on the market confusion

[Art-lover]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

The critic is not to impose a taste, but in order to share his views and experiences with art.
No more.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

The process of understanding - a dialogue not only with the product, but also with ourselves, others, who it perceives.
It is therefore important figure of the critic, especially a good critic.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Does she understand a man of pleasure from floating broom?
Probably, but the word here is clearly too much.
And so with art: if a person takes pleasure from dialogue with the art, the question of "understanding" as something out of the brackets.

Clearly. While fun is not to understand. A good critic - as an inappropriate element of dialogical process of understanding - at this time must be locked in the closet.
And if someone derives pleasure from the process of understanding, what remains in brackets, if the brackets to put the question of understanding?
In general, if the "understanding" - baroque flourish, it is not surprising that the role of the critic is to "nice to talk about art with a clever man, and fully disclosed to the bath and a beer.

Читать дальше... 

Сообщение от Art-lover

A faith and knowledge is clearly correlated: if we know that we need not believe. And we believe in what they do not know.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

A typical logical error, very common.
I know that God is, and I believe in God.
"Believe" - it is something other than "know".
What God is, I always knew, but now I have believed in Him at once.
Believing in God - is trust God that is to love God, fear Him and to fulfill the commandments.
But know that God exists, it is possible without faith in Him: and devils know and tremble.
The child knows and believes that his mother loves him. They are different things, different.
When a person believes, not knowing it's called "blind faith".
She nobody wants, trust me.
Belief in God does not mean that a person believes that God exists.
This is not faith, it is blind faith, it does not need the Lord.

You should not use the word "logic" - it does not work for you.
But this is not always possible to put in reproach: where it comes to faith in God, rationalism takes its demands.
"I believe because it is absurd," said Tertullian.

In your vocabulary lacks words "believe", and you replace it then the word "know", the word "believe".
Besides, you mix the language of secular and sacral segments of the plan, where the word "knowledge" and "faith" correlate differently. As a result, there is a big mess.
 
Confidence - belief in his knowledge. Self-confident people - not the same as people who knew him.
The confidence may be misplaced. Knowledge can be false. Faith may be superstition.
"I know he loves me" - says the girl today. "I believe he loves me" - sad to refine it, perhaps tomorrow.
Believing is not knowing - it could be called blind faith, but you can - to "trust". (Do you remember the treacherous apostate, as I trust you? "And whether we condemn the girl for her blind love?)
Not long ago, everyone knew that the sun revolves around the Earth, and believed that the fire cleanse soul witches ...
The child does not know and believe "that his mother loves him - he feels it. And the feeling when you do not like. Alas, it happens.
They know their god the idolaters. They can, and his love and fear, and to fulfill its precepts - until it fulfills its functions. And for negligence can and thrash, or even to upgrade to a full replacement.
Demons do not know God: they know the angels.
In monotheistic religions the belief in God - a faith in His existence, and in His incomprehensibility.
"Knowledge" of God, they talk about mysticism, this is not the "knowledge", with which we deal in worldly affairs.

Questions about what true faith is faith, and includes personal relationship with God (usually mediated the church and tradition), takes us to another plane - do not want to raise them here.