FACT: you are not correct and you obviously know nothing of aestheticism....so shhh

not to go off on some tanget about this or that and all the philosophical concepts pertaining to art, i'll end this real briefly....Jean-Paul Sartre in his "Essays In Existentialism" had a rather intriguing idea pertaining to "objective" vs' "subjective" which is really what existentialism is, and art is also a nice lil' tie in with existentialism (Nietzsche himself, one of the key players in existentialism, was absolutely obsessed with aestheticism..."The Birth of Tragedy"....very interesting essay pertaining to "art" and greeks....i suggest you read it)....anywho, i'm going on a rant.....ALL art is subjective?........well, not to point out every illogical justification behind this, i'll just give a brief example....do you consider "writing" as art? well i sure as hell do.....and as such, i consider "prose" writing also as a form of art....now you tell me how "prose" can be anything but objective if indeed it is prose....in other words, to give an example, you read an "owners manual" for a stereo.....how is that subjective? what other meaning can be derived other than "connect the A wire to the A slot"?????......this is objective....this is a mere example of a type of prose....not the best analogy, but an example nontheless...prose, which is art, is not subjective....hence, not all art is subjective....

or, another analogy if you'd like.....math....do you consider math art? how is math in anyway subjective?

what you may consider as art, or worthy of being recognized as art, can be subjective.....but nonetheless, all art is not subjective.....guy A considers math art, you don't = subjective......math as an art = objective

for further consideration on this topic and my views on "art" and the ever cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" i suggest you search for a thread titled "is killing/murder art?" in this very philosophy section here at DF......resurrect if you'd like.....i truly love discussing the philosophy of art....


ANYWHO, BACK ON TOPIC
and i think ERESH CLOUDY has it right....many of you are generalizing what "religion" is aiming to do......not every religion believes in an after life.....a number of your eastern worldviews believe solely in this life and how one may achieve peace in this life.....why? well, why not? better to live happy than miserable eh?

i for one do not believe in religion, and yet i ponder if there is an after life.....doesn't mean it's all glorious and all that......St. Augustine himself, a very popular Medieval Theologian, (theologians as you know are religious philosophers [so to speak]), and evidently he must have been great if indeed the vatican or whoever awarded him with the title of a "Saint".....anywho, it was his thought that the "after life" wasn't as grand as the Church was making it out to be.....he thought the "after life" didn't contain a heaven or a hell, but just rather a sense of existening without perception......meaning, since your physical body is no longer with you when you're dead, thus only your soul is left, how is it possible for such a soul to perceive? without eyes, "sight" cannot function.....so there you are, dead, your soul being where ever it is souls go, and there it is, all alone, with no comprehension, no perception, no memory, etc. etc. etc........how great is that?!

so yeah, stop generalizing about religions and the beliefs of religious men......like i said before, i know very little about religion or their ideals, but i find it very interesting that a man awarded with the title of "Saint" and who was quite possibly one of the leading theologians ever, and if i'm not mistaken, also has the most "writings" in history....or has some of the most....i know all the man did in life was write and write and write and write.....anywho, i find it interesting that such a man, who was religious, who believed in God, who worked for the Church, he himself believed that the "after life" would suck!