Introduction

Now in my retiring years, I feel moved to share my thoughts on art, literature, history, cultural affairs and politics. To this end, I am delving into this strange world of blogging where I will work through my thoughts and reflections on things that challenge me, e.g., the nature of rights, the problem of borders, the labeling of "Deplorables," and things that entertain me, e.g., books and films (particularly fantasy, horror, and science fiction); ethics and aesthetics; linguistics and the fluidity of language. I am not without opinions based on three score years of living and reading and observing; however, few of these opinions are so entrenched that they could not be revised or even based a reasoned and articulate argument.

On the other hand, there are a few matters, based on faith, that are unshakable. Because these matters are faith-based, they are not, in my opinion, subject to logic. I choose to believe in the God of the Old and New Testament. I choose to believe that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God who lived among men to provide guidance and redemption. I could argue against these two beliefs quite logically, but to what end? I have heard the arguments against God and Christ as Man/God, but even in the face of perhaps superior reasoning that God and Christ are as mythological as Zeus or Dionysus or Osiris, I, nevertheless, have rejected what my mind and logical argument tells me and I cling to, nay embrace these two core beliefs. Does that mean I adhere to the entire trappings that attend to Christianity? Do I accept the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible, that its teachings and preaching are valid for all times and all circumstances? On such questions I am more open. Did Adam and Eve really bite into an apple and condemn all men and women to death and damnation? Was Jonah really swallowed by a whale (or great fish)? Did Jesus really walk on water or change water to wine at the wedding at Cana? Does the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Jesus at the Sacrament? Any of these can be discussed and debated, but again most of these are faith-based concerned and not readily amenable to logical scrutiny.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) divided the world into two categories: the phenomenal world where our understanding of reality is conveyed by our sensory experiences and our mind's ability to organize the sensory inputs into meaningful constructions and the noumenal world which is literally the world of faith, the world that is not perceptible through normal sensory experience and those "otherworldly" things that science can neither prove nor disprove. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved. The earthly existence of Jesus Christ can be supported by impartial historical records, but claims of his divine nature, his miraculous powers, and his resurrection are readily called into question because they are things contrary to our experiences in the phenomenal world. These are points that can endlessly be debated, but never definitively resolved. Thus, while religion will certainly entire discussions in this blog, it will do so as a culture phenomenon rather than as a doctrinal one.

The noumenal world, of course, involves more than just the theological issues already alluded to. Kant believed that the elements of the noumenal world were not solely dependent based on a leap of faith, but that many such areas of the human experience can be understood through the use of reason. Ethics and aesthetics, for example, are two prominent areas of study that fall squarely in the nominal world and will be frequently the subject of my blog postings. An introduction of a few philosophical concepts will probably be helpful at this point.

Ethics (clicking on link will take you to a YouTube video providing more in-depth information) is the philosophical field examining morality, that is, what is right and what is wrong and how the difference between the two can be discovered.

• Deontology   is an ethical system that uses rules that distinguish what is right and wrong. It assumes universal moral laws. These rules may be handled down from God to man as was the case with the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. They might also be handed down from some figure of authority like a king; a group of elders, scholars or elected officials; or the general agreement of a cultural group. In this ethical theory, what matters is that you follow the rules. If killing or torturing one person will save a thousand lives, it would be ethically wrong because it is against the rules to kill of torture. Similarly, if you illegally cross a country's border to provide a better life for your children, your action would be ethically wrong. In deontology, no matter how good the consequence, it is ethically wrong to break the rules.

• A sub-group of deontology is Divine Command Theory. This theory as the name implies is that the Divine provides a set of rules that determines what is right (moral) and what is wrong.
• A second sub-group is Natural Law Theory. This theory is a variation on Divine Command Theory where the Divine has built into human certain an intuitive desire for things that are good for us, e.g., survival instinct. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) identified seven Basic Goods and from these, man does not require a written document like the Bible to know what is right and good, but can reason through what is moral. For example, I have a survival instinct which implies my life has value. You are like me so I can infer that your life has the same value as mine. From this I can reason that it would be wrong to kill you since it would be wrong of you to kill me. Hence, the moral law that murder is prohibited. 
• Yet another variation of deontology is what Immanuel Kant called Categorical Imperative. Similar to Natural Law Theory, Kant removes the Divine from the formulation and posits that morality is knowable just by using intellect. Kant argued that 1) what is right for you to do must be right for everyone to do if it it to be moral, and 2) if you always treat others as an end, not a means you will act morally, 

• Consequentialism posits that the moral quality of an action is solely based on the consequence of an action. In consequentialism (also called Utilitarianism), the right action is that which provides the maximum good, so if this philosophy is applied to the case where killing one person to save a thousand lives, it would be morally good to commit murder. The maxim here is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or that the end justifies the means. Situational ethics is a form of consequentialism.

Many topics that will be found in this blog will look at cultural and political issues using the aforementioned theories of ethical inquiry.

Aesthetics is another field of philosophical study that I find particularly interesting. It deals with the nature and valuation of beauty and art. It also attempts to determine what makes an object beautiful or valuable. Can objective criteria be applied to determine the beauty or value of an object or is beauty and value entire subjective? Some philosophers suggest that beauty is the correct and coherent arrange of parts to create a whole. Others suggest that an art object is beautiful if it brings pleasure. In an attempt to objectify the evaluation of an art object, the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) suggested five strategic step: 1) learn to look at the work a fully as possible, 2) compare the art object to similar objects that have stood the test of time, 3) suppress any prejudicial attitudes that might influence the valuation of the object, 4) reflect on what emotional response the art object evokes and how or why it achieves the effect, and 5) to the extent possible, consider what the artist intended to communicate with the art object and how successful the intention was achieved.

Art is a tripartite object involving the artist or creator, the work itself, and the audience. If we consider the artist first in evaluating the art object, it might be nice if they stated clearly what he/she was trying to achieve during the creative process. Was the intended goal to send a message or lesson to a target audience, or was it to arouse a specific emotional response in the audience, or was it the artist's way to express or release certain emotions that the artist was having at the time of the creation? These leads to the question, must an objective of art have to have a purpose or achieve a particular effect? Is well executed, but meaningless art still considered art?

Next consider the art object itself. Is it well executed, that is, skillfully rendered? Does it adhere to expectations of design elements like focal point, balance. symmetry, proportion, etc.? How do the design elements contribute to advancing the intended message or arousing the intended emotion? If it deviates from the conventions of traditions design elements, is it purposeful and necessary in achieving the intended goal?

Finally. consider the audience. The audience brings to the art object a whole array of experiences and expectations that may affirm, distort, or disregard the artist's intention. Does the artist intend the work for a particular audience or does he/she rely on the commonality of the human experience to make the intentions of the object accessible to all?

Film is probably the most complex art object because it combines elements of the visual arts, literature, music, and choreography. It is the art form that most often will most often appear in this blog.