My knowledge and understanding of aesthetics is that it is a very profound and pure knowledge. It is human nature to love beauty. Everyone has the ability to love beauty, but not everyone has the ability and talent to study beauty. Aesthetics and aesthetics are basically two different things. Aesthetics is essentially a phenomenon of human social life, and aesthetics is a philosophical discussion of this phenomenon. Aesthetics originally belonged to philosophy, but later it was separated from philosophy and became an independent discipline. Academically, aesthetics is interdisciplinary, involving philosophy, anthropology, art and other academic categories. As a research, it needs profound academic accomplishment, especially philosophical foundation. But the present situation is that aesthetics is everywhere, and the huge team of aesthetic research and the number of aesthetic works and articles make people look abroad. There are costume aesthetics, architectural aesthetics, music aesthetics, teaching aesthetics, cultural aesthetics, decorative aesthetics, sports aesthetics and so on. And all kinds of large aesthetic categories can be divided into more specific small aesthetic categories, such as football aesthetics, basketball aesthetics, dance aesthetics, Go aesthetics and so on. Now it seems that there are only "aesthetics of eating" and "aesthetics of understanding". But reading these aesthetic works, except some aesthetic terms and concepts, can't see philosophy at all. We can see that some scholars who have even written many aesthetic monographs know nothing about philosophy. Some aesthetic works simply talk about some simple phenomena and their experiences, only borrow the aesthetic appearance, and have no depth at all. Here I want to talk about my understanding of practical aesthetics. In my opinion, practical aesthetics has developed the aesthetic thoughts in Marx's Paris Manuscripts to the maximum extent. Compared with other aesthetic schools in China, it has the most theoretical explanation function, but it also has serious shortcomings. The key to make up for the defects of practical aesthetics is not to declare to "transcend" or "deny" it-any aesthetic scholar who wants to transcend and deny it can establish his own aesthetic system as much as possible, without relying on the public opinion of "surpassing" or "denying" to force practical aesthetics to "retire"-but the disciplinary orientation of practical aesthetics itself: whether it is a social science aesthetics guiding aesthetic practice or a humanities science based on practical philosophy. At present, practical aesthetics is scientific. For example, the scientific nature of practical aesthetics is irreplaceable in revealing the law of aesthetic occurrence; When explaining the generation of cultural aesthetic value, it is also explanatory. Of course, it is necessary to appropriately limit the "pan-americanism" caused by the "objectification of essential forces" (see below for details). But as far as the overall disciplinary characteristics of practical aesthetics are concerned, I personally think it is closer to speculative aesthetics. In practical aesthetics, there are not only speculative concepts such as accumulation and meaningful form, but also the objectification of essential power and the humanization of nature have become the logical starting point or theoretical cornerstone for revealing the essence and law of beauty based on practice. This makes the essence and law of beauty revealed by practical aesthetics have a great blind spot in aesthetic interpretation. References:

/b/3 1 18983.html？ From = related