aefenglom | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Name: Entrapta
Date: oct 16th
Format: text

HELLO! I WANT TO COLLECT SOME DATA.

IF YOU HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT ETHICS, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1] ARE THERE ACTIONS YOU CONSIDER UNACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES

2] ARE THERE SOME MITIGATING CONTEXTS THAT RENDER OTHERWISE UNACCEPTABLE ACTIONS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES

3] IF A PERSON HAS PERFORMED AN UNACCEPTABLE ACTION, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT?

THANKS! 8)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes. As I said, I'm an author. What I want to see is the core of a person.

HMM! OK SO HOLD ON THIS MIGHT BE COMPLICATED. DO YOU THINK THAT IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE? OR IS IT JUST YOUR PREFERENCE?

I'm a twisted creature with hardly any positive traits to boast of. If I were held up as a moral standard... ha! What a joke that'd be. No, it's simply because I'm too much of an artist and too little of a human.

ARE HUMAN" AND "ARTIST" MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TRAITS??

In a sense. Tell me, what is an artist to you?

HMM, I'VE NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS! I GUESS SOMEONE WHO CREATES THINGS FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES

A cut-and-dry definition, one you can't argue with. Interesting. I've a bone to pick with the word "aesthetic." Beauty is not the purpose of art, nor is it the artist's duty to portray beauty.

Here is my definition of it: an artist is one who observes. Are you a scientist, by any chance?

I OBSERVE PLENTY OF STUFF AND I'M DEFINITELY NOT AN ARTIST! I AM A SCIENTIST, LIKE YOU SAID.

I DIDN'T JUST MEAN BEAUTY, THOUGH. WHEN I SAID 'AESTHETIC' I MEANT THAT THE IMPORTANT PART OF ART IS HOW IT LOOKS, INSTEAD OF ITS FUNCTION.

Both your points are taken. But isn't science, too, an art? The line between mysticism and progress is thin, and what you create is a reflection of what you deem to be of worth.

In any case, here is my point. As a scientist, you know that the best observer when it comes to practical data is one outside of the phenomenon. So it is with artists. We create a replica of what we believe is the human soul. Such a creature thrives in being an outsider, and is often at odds with what human society accepts.

HMM. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSERVING AND UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH. DOESN'T BEING AN OUTSIDER MAKE IT HARDER TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE?

But of course. That is why those who straddle the line between outsider and human are ideal observers, in my opinion.

SO BY THAT LOGIC WOULDN'T A GOOD ARTIST BE SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTOOD THAT STUFF?

The straddling or being human?

[Andersen can you not make jokes like this.]

BEING HUMAN

[ it's fine, she hasn't noticed it's supposed to be a joke ]

Ideally? Yes. But they must understand human nature in a fashion that ironically separates them from their fellow man.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only