Philosophy and Art
The artists see through the daily objects with the simplest form of artwork in order to express the ideology without the complicated logical system while the philosophers used the continuous logical process in order to deduce from the simplest form into the complicated dogmas of the world. In other words, the distinct process between the differences of philosophy and art was focused on the expression.
For example, the artwork of Van Gogh expressed the ideology of impressionism while his artworks consisted with the careless but clear streaks in order to form the unique style of art. The Starry Night was the best example from the personal opinion. The illusion between stars and night-sky, the correlation between colors and moods, and causal lines with imagery give the viewers a sense of astonishment and amusement. Well, it couldn't be described fully through the imagery that it brought to us anyhow because it's the artwork. The ideology behind the artwork may be differentiated from person to person, but the general agreement about the ethics will be understood by understanding the life-experiences after all.
While through the logical thinking process, the ideas behind the artwork such as Starry Night maybe ambiguous. Without the senses of aesthetics, the pure simple logical process of syllogism will not be helped to understand any kind of ideology. Even though I could analyze the combination of complex lines, saturation of colors or the placement of objects through the logical process of philosophy, I could never get a solution of a various kind of ideology behind the Starry Night.
With that has been said, the differences between art and philosophy may just be the differences between sensible world untouchable world.
The path of philosophy should start to consider as philosophy in Plato's time. The Plato used the logical, reasonable and sensible ideas to correlate one concept in order to express the current state of society with philosophy with what should and should not to do for the better benefits for people. Instead of saying that the philosophy is the subjective products of human alone, the thinking process with logic may just have to be the universal relationship between things and things.
For example, Plato could only use his logical process between the benefits (profits) between human and society. He stated that there shouldn't be a groups of direct democracy from people but the representative in the society of republic because it just looks like the carp between sailors and captain about who should control the steering wheel because everyone though that he/she has the ability for his/her own (or group's) benefits. While saying that, he is only analyzing the current problems of democracy in his society of democracy instead of stating the universal rules of republic. Throughout his works, he is analyzing through the problems and problems by the narrative dialogues and stories between characters. The logical process was performed through his work while it just has to be the reasonable process.
The reasonable process could be defined as the sense between objects and subjects for the individual's benefits. The profits still needed to be considered in the thinking. Well, the logical process only stated the preconditioned preposition with the further deduction from it through the things. The preconditioned preposition must be certain at any points. For example, Plato's stories may not fit in society of Chinese civilization.
In just the pure logical form of philosophy was described in the works of Aristotle. Its application on the logical world from the biological senses of human was done in German philosophy. In Kant's philosophy, he described the the his mindset in the book of Critique of Pure Reason. In this book, he firstly described the fundamental ideology of perception between objects and subjects: space and time. The most fundamental factors of the world we were perceiving today was through space and time. After that, he began to describe or deduce the answer about what can we thing and what can we perceive from this world simply through the preconditioned preposition which he described in the first portion: space and time. There is no a wrong or right answer, for everything is just the preposition that needed to be conclude to his work. Ergo, in his work, he always described it into 2 categories: agreement and disagreement. From 2 distinct different perspective to consider the same problems allow people to see what must be considered within itself through logic. For we must understand, the complete process by its logic has a huge mistake in itself.
The established reality was the most important factor of logical thinking. Although speaking that the logical process of philosophy was the untouchable world instead of sensible world. But, the fundamental factors of perception from all perspectives were the biological sensation in any period of time in human history. In other words, the science with touchable world and culture with sensible world must relate with the world of philosophy for the reason of sensation and perception.
The preconditioned preposition is the first step to use logic in order to construct the world importantly while the preconditioned preposition without any personal bias and experience was based on the biological condition as an organism. For example, the Elements was written by Euclid with 5 unquestionable conditions of geometry. In other words, the philosophy that Kant constructed was based on the condition of 3-dimensional world and 1-dimensional time which was described clearly in the Newtonian Mechanics. In the period of time of Kant, the quantum mechanics was not yet constructed by people; ergo, the philosophers at that time zone could only use preconditioned rules of reality in order to construct the philosophy. Or I could say that the logic which was used on the pure logical philosophy must mix with some prerequisites anyhow.
In this case the philosophy of Kant, if we understood the basic construction of philosophy by itself, then all the prepositions that Kant was proposed were wrong. For we all know that Newtonian was not fully description of the world.
This is the distinct difference logic among the philosophy. But anyhow, both of those must relate with reality under the biological rules of human. Based on the preposition I stated before, the pure logical thinking process could only use the preconditioned rules to construct the world while there is no a definite conditions for preconditioned rules even for the 3-dimensional world we are living right now. It can't be creative after those circumstance.
Kant and philosophy
precondition of philosophy
We must consider that the syllogism of Aristotle was based on the construction of 3-dimensional world as well. Because A->B, B->C, so A must ->C under any circumstance. It just looks like the ship in the flat view. There were 3 points in the paper, and B is a point of the shortest distance between A and C. If you want to cross A to C, then you must touch B. It's perfectly simple to the pure logic of philosophy in the Euclidean geometry. But, it won't make sense in non-Euclidean geometry because the non-Euclidean geometry was not based on the simple rigid rectangular model of the world, it was based on the worlds with curves in the fluxed world.
By saying that, the non-Euclidean geometry broke the one of the 5 preconditioned conditions of Euclidean geometry, but it was still using the syllogism to construct the further conditions. If A works, then B must work. If A don't work, then B must not work as well. If A don't work, then the further conditions which were related to A must be constructed newly after all.
Therefore, the abyss of syllogism can't been escaped from.
Based on the argument above, the work of philosophy of either kinds of Plato's or Aristotle's must be related with syllogism, the preconditioned conditions must be described before the deduction of the logic and philosophy no matter it was based on moral conducts of reality int he society or the pure understanding from human ability. That's the limitations of philosophy because it could only turn circularly by itself.
While the path of artwork broke the pattern of syllogism, as the unique matter toward the life of human, the artwork showed a completely different thinking process through the illusion and fantasy.
The artwork took the complex ideas into the creative artwork instead of stating it directly on the paper, for the process of deduction was no longer matter to the crowd. It can't fully described the ideology behind the artwork because it's sentimental. As speaking above, the logical analysis of the style or the material form of artwork can't describe the art alone. The preconditioned conditions were vanished through the enjoyment and appreciation of arts. The unification between the objects and subjects becomes one. We can't describe it as completely illogical because it the reasons were still there behind the artwork. For instance, without the life-experience of Beethoven, it's impossible for him to write down such symphony of sublime for the world. Without understanding of tragedy, it's impossible for the Goethe to write the great work such as Faust. There is always a reason behind it. While the reason and process of thinking were indescribable, the artwork united the reason and process through itself. We could simply understand without directly telling it.
For example, by listening to the 9th symphony of Beethoven with the understanding of life-experiences of him, the tragic feeling of the happiness was understood by the listener easier. The feeling that this symphony brought to the listeners covered up the notes or the rhyme of itself, for the only thing left was the music and feeling toward the music. We understood Beethoven no by reading his experience or analyzing his personality but by listening to his music profoundly and sorrowfully. An other similar example would be Van Gogh. The meaning of behaviors behind the conduct of those artists maybe fuzzy to understand, but their artwork already revealed everything about the artists and their personality.
That I think was the most important differentiation between artwork and philosophy.