123hop at comcast.net wrote: No, it wasn't that simple. The ideal of purity for normal language was derived from the worship of "stable" (dead) classical languages. And there were those who argued that such purity had the "truth" of a stopped clock.
If you're interested in the subject, read Cassirer "The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy" or try my diss, which is microfiched by U of Minnesota(?)
Artists most definitely did not buy the division between the "truth" of science and of art.
Joanna
Absolutely! If any 17th century writer might have or could have raised the question of the truth of art it would have been Milton, and he's the perfect example of what Joana says above.
18th century English writers about art simply asserted that art should "delight and instruct", and that too they borrowed from Horace.
In my recollection, the first real statements about art as a separate kind of truth, different from common or scientific speech, would be found in the English Romantics, and Kant and Hegel.
BW
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Charles Brown"
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Joanna:
> why it was that in the seventeenth century, people started talking
> about there being one truth for science and another for art, a
> subsidiary assertion being that normal language was degraded, but that
> the language of science (mathematics) was pure....and that therefore,
> science was by definition "true."
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: I'm guessing it was the scientist-mathematicians and artists who
> started saying that math and art language was "pure" and "true" and
> normal language degraded ?
>
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
> www.surfcontrol.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk