A stack of theses on the market confusion

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Art-lover

for reasons unknown to me at the author's question put on a straitjacket and cut his lines of communication.

Hah! This one is it?
You mean Brui here only on Saturday wrote.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Art-lover

for reasons unknown to me at the author's question put on a straitjacket and cut his lines of communication.

Yes, a severe reaction to some of them admitted liberties

Vaughn seagull a nightingale pours on the world's charms - and nothing in her bath yet sent, and go dirty.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Oh, just about anyone knew it ...

[Peter]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

So it is with art: if a person derives pleasure from dialogue with the art, the question of "understanding" as something out of the brackets.

If the understanding of art is not required, but only to obtain pleasure, therefore, we make art in the utilitarian thing, such as "Bath", a good dinner with wine and t.p.Da, probably there is a "light", "pop" art. But there are others who can say that this "mirror of the soul." Perhaps the art of helping people to better know yourself (who are interested Estesstvenno). The work of art (whether painting, poetry or music) as a mirror reflects the subtle features of human soul, invisible and inaccessible to awareness of his own different way.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Peter

If the understanding of art is not required, but only to obtain pleasure, the way we make art in the utilitarian object, such as "bath", a good dinner with wine, etc.

What is the utility bath or a good dinner with wine?

It is quite possible to go into the shower and quickly fry the meat and eat it alone.

Another thing is that the pleasure of steam with the broom is easy to understand and at a young age, and the pleasure of art can come and not immediately, but then did not come.

Or a good wine. Up to 20 years, few of my friends can understand the good wine, and then, when predprimesh efforts, you get the pleasure at once and immediately.

As in the case when predprimesh effort to understand art, and then the fun - well, just like steam from a broom ...

[SAH]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

As in the case when predprimesh effort to understand art, and then the fun - well, just like steam from a broom ...

Igor Guriev, an interesting comparison, creativity.

[Peter]

Igor Guriev, and you my friend turns out to be a hedonist of art. <!--~ A ~-->( Hedonism, moral and ethical doctrine according to which pleasure is the supreme good of human behavior and the criterion of determining the entire system of moral requirements.) Art does not whore! And you blame from him to build up the bath. Ayayayay!

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Peter

Igor Guriev, and you my friend turns out to be a hedonist of art.

Sun, air, hedonism
Strengthens the body.

[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.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Art-lover

During the pleasures are not to understand.

Course.

Stroke the cat, she will enjoy, the question of understanding here is superfluous.

Added after 1 minute

Сообщение от Art-lover

confidence may be unfounded. Knowledge can be false. Faith may be superstition.

Maybe. And may not be.
So here Fifty-fifty.

Сообщение от Art-lover

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.

Why?
I look at the world and see that it was created.
Create it could only God.

So I know that God exists.

But God can some people be presented such that He created the world and forgot about it.

Faith in God - trust God, and not convinced that He is.

In the certainty that God exists, not much value, it adds little to our existence.

Added after 6 minutes

Сообщение от Art-lover

Not so long ago, everyone knew that the sun revolves around the Earth, and believed that the fire to cleanse the soul witch ...

And so it goes around the Earth: a look.
Depends on the point of view.

As regards the purification of the soul witches do not know.

It is a human invention, who wanted to, he "believed".