What is your philosophical understanding of this comment?

Question:‘Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art’

But the question is:
What does then art lead up to: entertainment?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: ‘Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art’

But the question is:
What does then art lead up to: entertainment?

I don't believe there is a link between science and art, although science can be very beautiful and artwork rather scientific.

yep, then entertainment leads to eventual boredom, which leads to questioning which leads to philosophy ...

Everything has potential, ergo, art can lead up to a multitude of things. Art (paintings, books, poems, clothing) could become entertainment- depending on one's definition of entertainment. In causing my brain to hurt----art could lead to more philosophy, which in turn creates science. It's a circle.

Tripe.
Every science begins as science and ends up hurting someone.
To equate science with philosophy is balderdash.
Philosophy trails behind all science at a great distance, providing intellectual games for those too ill-adjusted and prickly to make it outside academia. Science is made by great minds, Philosophers are intellectual whores.

I do not agree with the science to art transition. How can a science become an art? Yes, I am aware of the saying "This process is like an art" in reference to science processes, but this does not mean its an art form, nor is its function artistic. Take the auto industry. They have the assembly process down very efficiently, but scientific challenges will always be present. How will an artist solve these problems?

Good question!

Hear Keyserling: Philosophy is essentially the completion of science in the synthesis of wisdom.

Now, back to your question. Let me say that the object of science is the universal that contains many particulars; the object of art is the particular that contains a universal. Even the portrait ought to be is the ideal of the individual says Winchelmann. In painting animals the most characteritics is accounted the most beautiful, because it best reveals the species. A work of art is successful then in proportion as it suggests the Platonic Idea or universal of the group to which the represented object belongs. The portrait of a man must aim, therefore, not at photographic fidelity but at exposing as far as possible through one figure, some essential or universal quality of man.

Art is greater than science because the latter proceeds by laborious accumulation and cautious reasoning while the former reaches its goal at once by intuition and presentation. Science can get along with talent but art requires genius.

Our pleasure in nature, as in poetry or painting is derived from the contempltion of the object without admixture of personal will. That's how powerful art is.

One of the things philosophers like best about their job thou is that they have not just a right but a duty to stick to their noses into all the world's intellectual affairs, from science to politics via art and everything else. If they bring to bear the ideals of their vocation - clarity, principle, insight and illumination - they do a service to mankind. And sometimes, as the progress of human knowledge shows, they even find answers to some of the endless question they ask.

Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

I don't know where you came up with that saying. It was theorized that philosophy was the birth of modern science. You can kind of relate to that.

The process of science perhaps is artful, but it ending up as art? I don't think so.

Entertainment is just a by-product of the end stages of art, and is actually a form of art. Art usually ends up in legacy.

Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art’.

I've never heard that and I think it is a beautiful sentiment.

A good scientist will let philosophy guide him, as well, because all conclusions of science including the math are either of epistemological premises or of metaphysics.

Art is the "selective recreation of reality," and if science changes that, so be it.

Before Copernicus, the earth was the center of the universe in art--the selective recreation of what was believed.

After Galileo, the sun became the selected recreation in art.

I normally don't disagree so much with so many answers but science scares me, I find it cold and secretive, where as philosophy is just making words more beautiful and open and taking any subject and giving it so many perspectives, when you thought it could only have one (like a scientific one) philosophy is open to so much more, it has warmth and beauty, not Pietra dish's and white lab coats and a sterile environment

it's to me anyway warm Beach's, sunsets, talking about are creator feeling faith, because we know we cant do anything about stuff like so much we believe in but we know are there
****the wind, faith, love, pain (eternal) we can't see these things but we know for sure that there-there******without a doubt
****and art to me***is like beauty***it's all in the eye of the beholder**the picture of my sister and me (the one who has died) is more beautiful and priceless than anything in any art-show that you could ever take me to or ever buy me (ever)
Now that is from the heart *the proverbial heart***

Art leads to beauty. Beauty leads to fulfillment. Better art than law because nothing is completely stable. There is clearly a higher power tahnu s, otherwise we would know everything.
Our science is an art. Painting a picture of how our universe may work, but a single blemish on the painting can demean the whole picture.
I dont think the art always leads to entertainment. It usually leads to another blank canvas.

The more we know, the more we know we don't know. :)