|
|
| Topic: | Re:Re:Example from Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Posted by: | Ann Olivier |
| Date/Time: | 2011/10/8 20:28:49 |
|
It seems to me that the most fundamental distinction between the sciences?and the arts is that science is focused on *discovering necessary relationships* among things while the arts are focused on *synthesizing contingent* relationships among things, things which in combination are *fitting*.?That is, the arts are concerned with things which somehow go together.?A work of art is a combination of things in some certain order which together constitute something beautiful.?(Yes, this is a rather limited sense of "art", but in another way it is transcends all categories.)? The way of art is intuitive -- one simply intuits what is beautiful, one does not discover it by any logical process.?Because this is so, art can be said to reach beyond science in some way. Some things cannot be explained, but they need not be explained.?They simply *show* themselves. Did Piaget ever get into the formal (contingent) values of artworks as distinguished from scientific (necessary) ones? |