You should have corrected your straw mannish misconceptions at least, but I guess that's too much work. — Terrapin Station

That's straw person. ;)

We're not getting anywhere here. We're just talking in circles. Let me know when you have something new to add. In the meantime, I'll just agree to disagree.

Yes, and there's millions and millions of pages explaining how the bible or the quoran are true and worth following writtenby expert theologians (undoubtedly more than there is commentary on Shakespeare). Does that make what they write any more true? No wait...theology is different to art so that makes whatever you want to say about art automatically right and any analogy I draw automatically wrong. — Isaac

Another false analogy. Theologians are trying to draw from religious texts to make metaphysical claims about the world.
But the fact that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible does give evidence that these are more meaningful than "Transformers" ever could be.

At no point in time does the subjective content of someone's thought become objective fact. — Isaac

These aren't just subjective opinions.

You know Peter Pan was a story, right? — Isaac

You're conflating two entirely different concepts: understanding that a text contains a certain level of depth and thought and insight, versus thinking that the story itself is true. Not sure how you made that jump, but it's definitely moving in a strawperson direction.

It's really simple. If people think/obtain what they believe are 'deep' thoughts about a Michael Bay film, but obtain fewer from Hamlet, then for them Michael Bay movies are more deep than Hamlet. — Isaac

There is more possible depth for them to find in Hamlet than Transformers. And it doesn't matter that someone is too immature to spend some time with Hamlet. The fact is that the depth is there for anyone who is willing to explore it. Bays movies simply cannot provide that.

Analogy: let's say there are two caves. Cave A is a hundred times longer and deeper than cave B. Just because a person explores the entire cave B and merely glances at cave A doesn't mean cave B is magically deeper and longer. To that person it may seem that way, but that doesn't make it true.

What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give. — Terrapin Station

They're not writing about their "feelings."

We can't give evidence that Bay is better than Shakespeare--or worse than Shakespeare--outside of someone liking one or the other more, because there are no facts about one being better than the other aside from that. — Terrapin Station

One can like whatever one wants. No disputing that.

HOWEVER, there are things like philosophical breadth and depth that Bay just doesn't measure up to.

By your logic, there is no way to measure the difference in quality between a personal essay by an average middle schooler and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all just how you "feel" about it. Nevermind that if you actually look at the texts, instead of just blustering here because you like the idea that all opinions and "feelings" are equal, it's just obvious which one contains more thought, more ideas, more insight.

And frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who wants to maintain that the middle school paper and the Kant text are equal. In such a case, you're either just being stubborn cause you care more about "winning" an argument in an internet forum with a stranger than about the truth, or you just don't know enough to contribute to this conversation.

On your view, by the way, you wouldn't be able to make sense of me saying "That's not what I meant." That's a pretty common thing for people to say, which makes it problematic to not be able to make sense of it. — Terrapin Station

This entire post makes no sense.

:kiss:

Maybe you could be a bit more specific, especially given that you're attempting an argument that I stated an argument despite not at all thinking about it that way? — Terrapin Station

I already was specific enough. I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to accept it.

Meaning is conveyed through many elements of the English language.

But hey, you go ahead and scramble word all you like. See how far you get with that. :)

Structure is one of the many vehicles of meaning within the English language.

Consider:

The boy dropped the ball.
The ball dropped the boy.

A minor rearrangement of word order changes the entire meaning.

Doesn't that simply amount to insisting that your interpretation is correct, and contra what the author intended, because . . . well, I guess because it's your interpretation? — Terrapin Station

It's simply the structure of your sentence which is pretty obvious.

If an author says "the cat ran up the tree" and I say, "oh, there's a cat, and a tree" and then the author insists "no, no, by 'cat' I meant 'monkey' and by 'tree' I meant 'piano'" then my interpretation was more valid than his intended meaning.

You mean that you're saying that I may have been forwarding an argument even though I didn't think I was forwarding an argument? — Terrapin Station

I mean that what you said was an argument whether you want to accept it or not.

Geez, it's like talking to a wall. — Terrapin Station

Ditto

It's still circular and needs a more adequate explanation.

Maybe you read it as an argument. Okay. Nothing I can do about that. But I wasn't presenting it as an argument, as premises and a conclusion. — Terrapin Station

Same dif.

None of that amounts to it actually being better, since there is no actual better/worse. — Terrapin Station

Flipping the statements for coherency's sake:

No A is B/C.
Therefore A is not B.

You turned it into an argument by using the word "since."

No, that's not the way categorisation works, we continue to divide things by their differences. Believing that the majority must be right about race is the same as believing the majority are right about art because they are both cases of believing the majority are right. If you think they differ in some way that impacts my argument it is up to you to explain what that difference is, not up to me to list all the potential differences in advance and explain how each one does not affect my argument. — Isaac

So you have no idea how the two are related. Okay, good.

Right, and there's absolutely no complexity to why the majority of people think Shakespeare is better than Michael Bay? That's just simple and without any other factors involved than this elusive objective measure which no one seems capable of defining. Terrapin, in one of his posts above, has already given a list of the complex exterior reasons why a majority might reach a conclusion about Shakespeare other than some single mysterious quality, so I won't re-list them here. — Isaac

There may be, but then, as I've repeatedly explained, there's millions and millions of pages in which people explain all of the ways in which Shakespeare is deep and complex and artistically great. I'm afraid it is simply outside of my powers to list all of those things and give them their due explanation in a post on an internet forum.

But if you're actually interested, and not just blustering because you've already formed an unmovable opinion, maybe you should read some of the theses, dissertations, and books found here:
https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=shakespeare&qt=results_page
Or any of the articles and book chapters here:
https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=shakespeare&filter=

You see, all these papers and articles and books are page after page and word after word of evidence. These are people who have meticulously documented Shakespeare's greatness. If even half of it is true, he's much better than Bay. By the way, I'm still waiting on anyone offering such evidence in Bay's support?

Really? That's what you call 'explaining'? A series of hostile and condescending assertions? You do realise this is a philosophy forum? — Isaac

Yes. And you're trying to turn it into an "everyone's opinion is true" forum, which is just bunk.
You call it condescending. I call it pointing out an unbelievable display of hubris on the part of people who think their own opinion matters more than the educated, experienced opinions of thousands who have dedicated their entire lives to these subjects.

Do I have to explain irony to you? — Isaac

Do you understand the word "crude"? Because I was certainly not that.

In any case, I am STILL waiting for anyone to explain the ways in which Bay's movies are anywhere near as deep as Hamlet? Or are you just gonna hang your hat on the "entertaining to me" peg?

Actually, I was referring to the post-comma statement. Which IS question begging.

None of that amounts to it actually being better, since there is no actual better/worse — Terrapin Station

Begging the question.

This is not a relevant point on its own. Cats are not dogs, that doesn't mean they're not both hairy. The fact alone that we're not talking about race doesn't make any equivalence I draw automatically false. — Isaac

No, but your lack of establishing what the "hair" is does.

If race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people, then why did so many people used to think it wasn't — Isaac

That's a complex issue, but basically because slave labor is so gosh darn cheap and convenient.

That he didn't reach the same conclusion as you? — Isaac

Which conclusions are you talking about?

I've seen little in your responses along the lines of guiding Zhou through a process of looking at the objective measures used to judge art. I just see a lot of bluster and bare declarations. — Isaac

I did. I repeatedly explained that there is more philosophy in one Shakespeare play than in anything Bay ever did. Is this your somewhat awkward way to ask for more specific examples?

I presume this is meant to be ironic? — Isaac

You would presume wrongly. I try to refrain from such crudeness as you're inclined to exhibit.

Woah. So in the nineteenth century someone who believed that black people were of equal value to whites was "wrong"? What kind of bullshit argument is that? — Isaac

False equivalency.

First of all, nobody is talking about race here. We're talking about art.

Second of all, race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people. We have things to point to outside of ourselves that make that a dumb idea. Zhou is trying to claim that Shakespeare et.al . are not as great as previously thought not by reference to any objective standard of measure, but by reference purely to himself and his personal whims.

Third of all, if you find that the majority of people believe x, and you believe y, then you really should reconsider y, even if you think x might be immoral. And if through reconsidering you find the objective measures I mentioned above that support your y over x, you can stick with y. But if you can't, then show some humility.

Fourth of all, try using your brain and formulating an actual argument before just dismissing others crudely.

Please tell me what I learned from Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Thoreau, etc. Then I will find some low brow pop culture crap (all my favorites) that teaches a very similar lesson. — ZhouBoTong

I don't know what YOU learned, but then you are not the barometer of artistic quality.

As for what one can learn from these, I'll refer you to the WorldCat so you can peruse at your leisure the millions and millions of pages of dissertations, analyses, and commentary on the authors you mention in regard to pretty much any philosophical topic. Right there you have your proof of their depth and complexity.

Michael Bay's work simply cannot live up to such scrutiny. I do, however, tip my hat to this fellow who gave it one heck of a shot. (You'll notice he cheated the word count though with excessive use of stills from the movies, bold font, and just general recapping instead of analysis.)

Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better? — ZhouBoTong

It's true that we must first define art. And then define what makes art great. I think "we," and by that I mean a nebulous mass consisting of the culture at large and more specifically the people who care to think about these things, define great art as something that enlightens, ennobles, enriches.

As I already said, Bay and others make a certain kind of art very well: entertainment art, or "pop art." It's main purpose is to entertain. It does! I'm thoroughly entertained by these movies. But one does not walk away from them a better person, or filled with new ideas about philosophy, or enriched in any meaningful way. Maybe these movies have a moment here or there that sort of nod in the general direction of a thought, but it's not the multi-faceted approach you get from, say, Hamlet.

Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. — ZhouBoTong

That says more about you than it does about Shakespeare.

All Shakespeare has done is taught me is that some people in the past had crap morals (pure opinion) which as Isaac said I learned much better from history. And nearly EVERY old book teaches that lesson anyway. Oh, and minus a few lines of decent trash-talk, I have received almost ZERO entertainment value from Shakespeare. — ZhouBoTong

This tells me you haven't spent much time actually analyzing Shakespeare. But maybe you have, and it's meaning has eluded you.

But show some humility for crikey's sake: Shakespeare has been read and admired for centuries by millions of people. Thousands of people have, as I pointed out above, written millions of pages explaining just how and why his words are deep. And here you, piddly little you, come along and want to claim with one fell sweep that because YOU can't understand Shakespeare it's suddenly not great art? That your personal favorite action movies could somehow even compare? It just doesn't make sense.

And before you tell me "well, just cause a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true." Sure. BUT, Okham's Razor says that if the majority believe it is, and you don't (for no good reason, I might add), then you're wrong.

Yup

They probably would. Same dif.

I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona

Ugh. False dichotomy. As though emotions and logic were somehow unrelated.

So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination. — intrapersona

So they admit it's irrational? Good. Discussion over.

Nice poem, but how is this a discussion OP?

So you did. Missed that part. Sorry about that.

Have you ever had a close family member commit suicide?

It's like a bomb exploded right in the middle of everyone's lives and the scars stay with you forever.

You don't commit suicide because that would be one of the most horrifying things you could do to anyone who gives a hoot about your well-being.

It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

There's a LOT actually. Depth of thought, values, artistic ability, complexity, etc.

(I never learned anything about Michael Bay movies in school) — ZhouBoTong

That's because it wouldn't teach you anything of value.

they even have the audacity to suggest I am wrong when I say "I like x better than y". Why are we teaching opinions in school? — ZhouBoTong

Maybe your teachers worded this poorly, but absolutely no one is telling you what to like. You can like all the garbage reality TV you want, and there's little room for argument (one might be able to make a case that it rots your brain and imparts poor morals, I suppose). But some art is better than other art because it better fulfills what we want art to do. See above: deeper. more complex, more rich artistically.

I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of education or the arts to justify any insults - for example: Shakespeare is OK at best (brilliant use of language but garbage stories). — ZhouBoTong

I think you ought to feel a lot less comfortable if that's something you're going to say. Shakespeare uses archetypal stories and overlays them with rich worlds of emotion and philosophy. Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value.

That being said, I think Michael Bay does make good movies for what he sets out to do. He's not trying to create anything at a Shakespearean level. He's merely trying to entertain. I, and most Americans are entertained. Mission accomplished. I doubt even he would argue that his stuff is better than Hamlet, though.

We gunna talk about the Chinese ethnocentric culture which genuinely put emphasis on race — Judaka

Tu quo que much?

If you don't think America has a race problem, you haven't been paying attention.

You realise when you talk about terms like white blindness and white=normal that you're telling me about how I think as a white person right? Those things couldn't exist if white people didn't think in those ways. White privilege directly impacts and affects me but you're not making any claims based solely on skin colour? — Judaka

Fallacy of Division.

Yes, the white population of America as a whole has white blindness and white privilege. That does not necessarily apply to all individual constituents. It does, however, apply to the majority. And non-whites can have it too.

My assessment that you exhibit white-blindness stems from your words. I didn't know you were white until you just told me. Your OP doesn't seem to mention it. But of course, it's just another example of assuming white as the status quo to assume that we all know you're white.

The problem with that is that fixing the problems "for all citizens of the country" will never happen until people acknowledge the way things are.
— T Clark

This is crucial in getting rid of social issues. — Anaxagoras

Amen.

No, I am not. I said I wouldn't lie, but that doesn't mean I couldn't accidentally say an untruth. — OpnionsMatter

But you literally said "I refuse to lie" and then "any remarks are true coming from me."

I refuse to lie on this forum, so any remarks are true coming from me — OpnionsMatter

Is it possible you're confused about the difference between telling a lie and telling an untruth?

Yes, it clearly defines in the bible that he knows what he is saying — OpnionsMatter

That could be wrong.

although he does always say his words are true. — OpnionsMatter

I've never seen a more perfect example of Begging the Question.

but he himself knows that what he is saying is or isn't a lie — OpnionsMatter

But did he know they were untrue statements?

First of all, it's "Did Jesus Lie?", cause he's no longer alive.

Second of all, it depends whether he knew he was saying something untrue. Maybe he really believed God would answer all prayers, which makes his saying so an untruth but not a lie. Maybe he was speaking metaphorically, or the quote was mistranslated?

Similarly, when NKBJ has a book to write on me just because I'm white, that's no way to think. — Judaka

When did I ever make claims about you personally solely on the basis of your skin color? LOL

How would you rate the West in how racist and unfair of a society is relative to the rest of the world? — Judaka

I've lived in less racist places, but I have no idea about the rest of the world apart from that.

I believe hate crimes are higher here than most other places, but we do have larger minority populations than, say, Japan, so that may not be a fair comparison.

But how is that relevant?

I disagree with the way you've framed the topic to begin with. — Judaka

You do realize you do this a lot? Someone tries to bring in a different perspective, widen the scope of your inquiry, and see the problem you're presenting from a wider, different angle, and you shoot them down because.... you can't wrap your head around it? You're too stubborn? You have a certain answer in mind that you want to drive home and you're not actually interesting in honest inquiry? In any case, not good philosophizing.

You're looking to explain things in racially motivated terms which may or may not actually be relevant to explaining something like the representation in statistics of various subjects. — Judaka

Nope. I'm explaining the difference between the Alt-Right and the rest of white culture and why the AR and Nazis are vilified and not just seen as the equivalent of black/asian/hispanic/whatever pride.

Ethnicity to me is the most visible way to interpret differences between people, it's also the least subjective and the most simple. — Judaka

That's a load of horse manure. And that view of the world is in direct contradiction to this statement:

When I tell you I'm white, you've got a whole story for me don't you? You've got so much to say, you could write a small paper on it. Well, I don't like that. I seek to discredit your way of thinking, I won't contend with it by using your fixation on race. — Judaka

And this one.

If you can point out a particular example of racism then we're on the same team, I don't like any example of people using race to inform themselves about people. I will not deal with your race fixation, that's exactly what I'm challenging in this thread. — Judaka

Furthermore, I never said anything about using race to inform myself about anyone.
My specific argument is that white culture is seen as the normal culture, the "mainstream" culture, and thus we don't need any little sub-groups purporting to stand proudly for whites. Thus, anyone who does is suspicious.

Scratch some Alt-Right nut-job who says he just cares about pride in his own race, and you got a raving, racist lunatic who firmly agrees with the Endlösung.

There no difference, because in both cases it is just a claim that YOU are making. If it's a lie, it's just a somewhat bigger lie to claim 10 people have confirmed.

On the other hand, if 10 people actually tell me they saw your winning ticket, that increases the epistemic probability to me that you actually won. — Relativist

Good catch.

Which would also be the answer to:

That was my non-supernatural example. What got me thinking about it was accessing biblical accounts of miracles that claim many eyewitnesses and wondering if the claim of more eyewitnesses adds any credibility to the claim or not. — coolguy8472

Just cause Matthew says so and so many people saw miracle X, doesn't mean they did.

Additionally, the probability nears zero when the allegedly witnessed X (miracle or lottery ticket) is logically or practically impossible. Like, say, you claim to have won the lottery and people claim to have seen you, but you didn't actually play. Or you lost the ticket. Or there was no lottery.

Jesus returning sight to the blind or walking on water, or Moses dividing the Red Sea... those are pretty impossible things, and so eyewitness claims are not as convincing.

It's important to remember that the path is as important or more so than the goal.