The Art of Philosophy

A Response to Betsy's question: "Is philosophy an art?"

Because of the subjective nature of the question, I shall address it subjectively. As is often the case, before we determine whether or not a given thing fits into a certain set of qualities, we must first determine what these qualities are, therefore we must determine what qualities constitute art. We must first define art. Now, I do understand the intrinsic difficulties here, so while I do believe it is an apt definition, it is indeed, my definition.

Art = Creation + Intention. Art is anything that was created by man with artistic intent. Now, I understand your immediate objections, for many have made them. I cannot address them all here, nor will I try. I did write a lengthy (10-12 pages) dialogue last year in which I believe I adequately address them and defend this definition, and I would be happy to e-mail this to anyone who asks.

Philosophy, despite its imminent practicality and great interest to me, is, albeit a creation of man, rarely undertaken in an artistic intent. If a philosopher were to write a philosophical dialogue, were to give a speech of a philosophical nature, than both the dialogue and the speech would have the potential to be art, yes, but the philosophy itself would not. Likewise, if two persons were to enter into a discourse, it is their speech, their diction that would likely to be art, but the philosophy that may or may not be within that discourse would not be art, just as the moral within Moby Dick is not art, but the novel itself is.

In short, no, I do not think that philosophy would be considered art. As the definition of art is oh so elusive and equally subjective, here is my question: How do you define art?