If there is no free will, is all art pointless?

Question

If all things that occur are predestined to happen wouldn't that make the whole idea of human creativity pointless?

I should state, I not saying there isn't free will. Just assume that there is not, for the sake of this question.

Without free will all art is an accident, it is solely form, without meaning.

I am not saying art is has no value, it is beneficial in many ways, just that in universe without free will it is without meaning. There is no true creativity.

Answer 1

Although there would be some who would suggest that art is meaningless anyway, I would say the important factor is in the other half of your proposition there.

If we assume that everything in the universe is strictly determined, then yes, there is a meaning to everything, even art. Let me illustrate by an example:

If you are filling the tank of your car, the numbers on the meter are completely deterministic. Do they have meaning? Of course they do - the numbers are an indicator about whatever determined the number... in a sense they are an EXTENSION of the determining force (in this case the gas).

So to come back to reality, if there is no free will and everything is determined, art is an indication of the nature of the universe.

Which, if you think about it, is somewhat ironic - many artists desperately WANT their art to be a reflection of the nature of all things, and they could have it easily if only they had no choice in the matter.

Answer 2

Your question states this:
A) There is no free will
B) The point of art is to exist as a creation of free will
then yes, logically, in this case, if there is no free will, then art is pointless, but that assumes that B is true. Does art exist soley as a creation of free will? I think not. Nature for example. Has no "free will", per se, but it is "artistic" anyway. I think the real question is "If there is no free will, are we able to have any notion of "art"?

Answer 3

I don't agree that all things are predestined to happen, but assuming your premise is true I still think art would be worthwhile. We would still get the same enjoyment out of creating and viewing/listening/watching it as if it wasn't predestined. Nothing has really changed in my mind.

Answer 4

Ask yourself this - does art need meaning? Well maybe it does, considering art means "skill' from Latin ars, but still. Let art be art for the sake of anything - not necessarily for the sake of meaning.

Answer 5

Exactly. Therefore the fact that art exists as an expression of free will is proof that free will does exist.

Answer 6

Well it seems you are one human being. DO you not grasp the intricacy that lies beyond our universe. free will can never be proven by science and it will never be disproven because science is of humanity Free will is a discussion in philosophy WE shall never truely find the answers we humans really want to know.

Answer 7

No, it would make praising such art pointless.

But it still matters to you. Life does not become hopelessly meaningless once you accept there's no godawful thing such as uninfluenced intentionality.

No one worth their salt believes in the religious metaphysics of free-will.

Answer 8

you would need to argue:

a) only what is created freely has value

b) art is not created freely

c) therefore art has no value.

However, premise (a) is invalid -- and obviously, (b) cannot be empirically proven, so your argument seems weak to me. You would need both A & B and I don't think you're entitled to either.

Answer 9

There is free will in that nobody is going to force you to pick up that gun and kill somebody. You always have the power to say no. And live with the consequences, whatever they may be.

Answer 10

BUt who says there is no free will?

Anyway, some art is pointless. Do we need wide-eyed crying orphans?