Where does art come from?

[Alf]

Now, you can restart the discussion "metaphysics versus physics", also known as "spirit versus nature".

[Arcturus Descending]

Art does also come from culture - I think also adopted and adapted from others' cultures - but if that means it comes from soul, is it THE SOUL predominantly - meaning that intangible metaphysical thing which cannot be seen or felt but is eternal) or does SOUL here mean something else?

Doesn't the culture of a people include their history, individual and universal, their thinking, beliefs, their rituals, their struggles, their achievements, their failures, the very genes and blood which have flowed within them from their ancestors?

Isn't this a different kind of Soul? I do not see this as the Soul which came from a God but the Soul which has been created from a people and an on-going one, until that group of people has died out. Even then, perhaps it will be carried over to others.

Different Souls, right? Distinctions are important.

[Alf]

Soul => Culture => Art and all other cultural forms of expression.

So:
Art comes from both culture and soul.
Culture and art as well as all other cultural forms of expression come from a soul.

There are different cultures.
So it is very likely that there are different souls too, or the soul is basically always the same (though, I don't believe this), but the way how souls experience their environment is different, and this different experiences lead to different ways of life, thus to different cultures and thus to different cultural forms of expression.

[surreptitious75]

As an atheist I do not accept there is such a thing as a metaphysical soul but think that human beings have a psyche
which is the psychological and philosophical foundation of who they essentially are. And that is what I mean by soul

[Alf]

The metaphysical soul we are talking about here has nothing to do with theism.

This thread should not be about the question where the soul comes from; and if it came from nature, it would have a non-metaphysical origin, if it came from god/s, it would have a metaphysical origin, if it came from nature as god/s, it would have both a non-metaphysical and a metaphysical origin (see: pantheism).

But this thread is about the question where art comes from.

So let's have a talk without mentioning the origin of the soul.

Or is that question that important to you?

[Arcturus Descending]

The metaphysical soul we are talking about here has nothing to do with theism.

This thread should not be about the question where the soul comes from; and if it came from nature, it would have a non-metaphysical origin, if it came from god/s, it would have a metaphysical origin, if it came from nature as god/s, it would have both a non-metaphysical and a metaphysical origin (see: pantheism).

But this thread is about the question where art comes from.

So let's have a talk without mentioning the origin of the soul.

Or is that question that important to you?

lol That's fine with me.
Personally when I speak of soul I mean the human psyche.

[surreptitious75]

I only mentioned the soul in passing because clarification was required
So have no desire to derail the thread by talking about something else

[Arcturus Descending]

I only mentioned the soul in passing because clarification was required
So have no desire to derail the thread by talking about something else

Well, at least the two of us are on the same page, surreptitious75.

[Alf]

I only mentioned the soul in passing because clarification was required
So have no desire to derail the thread by talking about something else

No problem.

But you are right, it would mean derailing this thread, if we started talking about the origin of the soul. Also, such a topic would be too extensive for this thread.

Maybe one of us will soon open a thread with the topic: "Where does the soul come from?".

[Kathrina]

The soul isn't physical; the soul is metaphysical. Exclusively.

[Arminius]

The soul isn't physical; the soul is metaphysical. Exclusively.

The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ ("thing at itself" / "thing as such"), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ ("will") ....

[Arminius]

The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ ("thing at itself" / "thing as such"), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ ("will") ....

Those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: "As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables". And they are not only epistemologically important.

The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains "most things away"? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.

Spiritual constants, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like "pi" or "root two". They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word "spiritual" may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....