Magnus, the floor is yours...

Magnus wrote this:

“Your mistake lies in thinking that art, ethics and beauty somehow cannot be logically analyzed.”

K: and please feel free to logically analyze an ART piece, say the “Mona Lisa”
or perhaps feel free to logically analyze “LOVE”…

As going to my physical therapy right now and watching the Warriors
later, I shall return tomorrow… and as I said, the floor is yours…


hummmmm I would have thought that Magnus would have
left us a logically analyzed understand of ART or at least
the ‘Mona Lisa’’ that he said was possible, by now…I for one,
am kinda of disappointed, but there is tomorrow.
to give us love as it is logically analyzed…

Surely, he can do that, as he said was possible…

I have high hopes…


Where do you want me to start?

I don’t care about “Mona Lisa” and I think it’s seriously overrated. When I listen to people talking about Mona Lisa – as I did just a few weeks ago – I have a feeling they know absolutely nothing about art. They really only care about social status – the appearance of being sophisticated. It’s like those people on YouTube reviewing books by talking about how many pages it has. They talk about everything except for what truly matters. I call them “fake art lovers”. Unfortunately, thanks to them, and political manipulators, true art can’t shine.

There is a need for humans to practice certain things via imagination. That need exists because some things are difficult, if not impossible, to practice in reality. Unfortunately, imagination takes effort, so we also have a need to make that process easier. To that end, people invented a variety of tools that we call “works of art”. Those tools have no purpose other than to help us imagine what we think we should practice.

Of course, not everything we call “art” matches that definition. Fashion design and architecture are, per se, more about creating an impression than anything else. The job of a fashion desiner, for example, is to figure out what kind of clothes create certain impression the best. The same goes for architecture. They are a bit less of an art in the above sense and closer to things such as UI/UX design. Painting and plastic arts are often employed to that same end but they can be, and often are, used for other ends. Prose fiction fits the above definition the best. Poetry, music, dance, painting and plastic arts immediately follow. Movies and games also fit the definition pretty well.

All in all, art is quite useful, it’s just that a lot of people have trouble seeing exactly how (and that’s because they don’t spend enough time on logical analysis.) Some even wrongly conclude that it’s useless (e.g. Oscar Wilde.)

What exactly do you want me to tell you about love? Love is a type of perceived value. Value is no more than utility i.e. how useful something is to someone. It’s about how helpful and necessary something is in order for someone to attain their goals. Perceived value is what one thinks is valuable (which may or may not be truly valuable .) When you love someone or something, you think that that someone or something can help you achieve your goals. There are also different types of love all depending on how you think the object of your love can help you attain your goals.

Logic can only be understood by a logical mind.

This topic is like PK asking MA to explain himself in Chinese. PK then claims that he didn’t understand a word of it therefore MA can’t explain himself. #-o

you sound like a eugenicist

And you sound like a dunny fly - consuming whatever shit you find at your feet.

K: the question was, can one logically analyze ART, the Mona Lisa for
example, or logically analyze LOVE?

Magnus effort, was an effort… not a particular good effort of logically
analyzing either the Mona Lisa or love, but I will give him points for
trying…now my point was the we cannot, cannot logically analyze
either ART or Love… after Magnus effort, I believe my point, still
holds… that we cannot logically analyze ART or love…


You do what you usually do. You make a claim and then ask everyone else to prove you wrong. When noone answers your call, you start a thread, giving them a short period of time to prove you wrong, after which you declare to the world “See, they’ve got nothing.” It’s not fair play. But hey, that’s you.

Maybe you should start by defining what it means to logically analyze something, or at least, by explaining what’s not a logical analysis with regard to what I said about art and love.

P1 You do not like it
P2 It is overrated.
Non sequitur: Therefore you do not want to talk about it.

Well that might be “logical”, but concludes nothing about The Mona Lisa in any useful way.

You’re trying way too hard to disagree.

Portraits are creepy. Landscapes are amazing for house wall art.

There are a lot of amazing painters better than DaVinci.

Escher drawings are even better than DaVinci drawings.

Michelangelo… could not only paint better than DaVinci but was one of the best sculptors of all time.

You couldn’t pay me to hang the Mona Lisa in my apartment.

I’d take starry night by Van Gogh though.