Foget: We're not propounding an aesthetic morality, like we're erot. The artist applies himself to the composition of a picture and the picture that ought to be made is precisely that which he will have made. As every one knows, there are no aesthetic values a priori. What has this to do with morality? We are all in the same creative situation.We never speak of a work of art as irresponsible. When we are discussing a canvas by pacaso, we understand very well that the composition became what it is at the time when he was painting it. And nobody says, oh, that means the paintings don't really have value, because there was no
David and Tamler don black turtlenecks and light up a couple of Gauloises to talk about Jean Paul Sartre's classic essay “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Why are choices so fundamental to our experience? What does Sartre mean when he says that “existence precedes essence”? Why does he try to shoehorn universalizability into a view that’s clearly hostile to it?
Plus, how much free time is good for you? Is that even the right question?
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: