Well, you'd have to apply 'merely' to arithmetic and thence to the whole of mathematics in that case, because that's the parallel I'm drawing. Both philosophy and its subset aesthetics are questions of using mental tools, and if that isn't a process, what is?
After all, what is the aim or end of philosophy? Surely, to discover something, be it Truth, Beauty, Morality or a convenient rule of thumb. Philosophy is in its very nature thinking about things, so it is meaningless to pretend that it is an end in itself, i.e. that there is no 'thing' to think about.
Of course, the thing you think about may be philosophy itself: about whether there is a ding an sich, whether existence precedes essence, and so forth. To do this, however, you are still using philosophical tools to analyze a concept, and besides, it is a fairly small part of philosophy (though of course its more enthusiastic advocates would argue that it is all of philosophy).
Quite apart from that, there are Marxist philosophers, feminist philosophers, moral philosophers, you name it: the word 'philosophy' is so flexible as to be a great deal less meaningful than my use of the word 'process'. Shakespeare got it right when he said that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in philosophy: I omit the 'your' because I take the reading that 'your' in 'your philosophy' is like the 'your' in 'your average photographer', i.e. it does not imply that this is Horatio's own specific philosophy.
Finally, unless aesthetics is a means to an end, the end in question being the understandiing of beauty, and unless that end can be replicated and applied (not necessarily by the philosopher, but by an artist), I find hard to imagine an emptier subject.
Cheers,
R.
Oh my, where to start. Firstly, as I said, if by 'process' you simply mean something which employs mental capacaties, then sure, philosophy is a process. But then it's really just a pleonasm that doesn't really say much.
Secondly, as I explained, it's not the 'process' part I took issue with but the 'personal' part as the context you used it in implied that topics in aesthetics are really not up for debate as everyone has their own aesthetics (akin to everyone having their own taste). Again, I do not disagree that this can be the case but aesthetics is not
just that. Philosophical aesthetics is very much a field of debate and discussion and there is value in that (unlike, e.g., discussing one's taste in women, which is truly not open for debate).
To make it short, I'm saying that there's a value in discussing aesthetics no matter how it might or might not influence our own picturetaking process. Aesthetics is a means to
understand something about art not a means to create better art.
I do not know why you're bringing up Kant quotes or other ontological terms in this discussion as it clearly serves no purpose here. With all due respect, it just seems like an attempt to show off. I'd be happy to discuss any of these topics thoroughly with you on another occasion.
There are indeed Marxist philosophers, feminist philosophers and also slim, fat, tall and short philosophers. And, believe it or not, the field of philosophy is almost as diverse as the people engaged in it. Again, I do not understand what your constant inserting of quotes adds to the discussion other than boasting your ego.
Aesthetics is first and foremost just a term used to put certain topics of philosophical interest into one category. The field itself is very broad and the way of thinking about these topics varies greatly. Of course all philosophy is thinking and thinking is a means to an end, the end in question being the understanding of that which one started thinking about. It is, however, not necessarily a means of understanding something in order to change the way certain things are. Let's take an aesthetic concern like defining art (which, grantedly, is amongst the most useless of concerns). You can either come up with a normative definition (saying what art ought to be) or you can look at what kind of things we regard as art and then try to find a definition that includes everything that is art and excludes everything that isn't. If you come up with an adequate non-normative definition you will have clarified the concept of art but you this clarification of concept is not a means to an end, it's an end in itself. Surely, many artists have been inspired by philosophical thought (be it Platon, Kant, Diderot, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. etc.) butz then again, artists get inspired by all sorts of things in the world.
