‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 09-08-2004, 01:25 PM

'Is 'Art' transcendent, or does it have a transcendent dimension, or put us in touch with one.

Perhaps the argument is between the Platonists & the Aristotelians, in which case it probably never will be solved.

Replace 'transcendent' with 'impersonal', objective. Did Middle earth come to us from Tolkien, or through Tolkien. It seems to me that your position is almost Platonic in its own way, taking the art, Middle earth, as a 'given' a thing which exists in & of itself, not arising from Tolkien, because if it did arise from the mind of Tolkien alone, then how can you not see Tolkien's beliefs & values as central to an understanding of it?. It seems that on this question I'm arguing for it being the product of a man's mind, so the owner of that mind must be taken into account if we are to understand what it produced, while you are almost arguing that is should be seen as an objectively existing thing, which is just a 'given'. I become the 'subjectivist' & you the 'objectivist'.

09-08-2004, 01:25 PM	#11
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	'Is 'Art' transcendent, or does it have a transcendent dimension, or put us in touch with one. Perhaps the argument is between the Platonists & the Aristotelians, in which case it probably never will be solved. Replace 'transcendent' with 'impersonal', objective. Did Middle earth come to us from Tolkien, or through Tolkien. It seems to me that your position is almost Platonic in its own way, taking the art, Middle earth, as a 'given' a thing which exists in & of itself, not arising from Tolkien, because if it did arise from the mind of Tolkien alone, then how can you not see Tolkien's beliefs & values as central to an understanding of it?. It seems that on this question I'm arguing for it being the product of a man's mind, so the owner of that mind must be taken into account if we are to understand what it produced, while you are almost arguing that is should be seen as an objectively existing thing, which is just a 'given'. I become the 'subjectivist' & you the 'objectivist'. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."