May I remind us all that the point of the thread isn't to pull up impressively obscure words. Good words are just good words, and I would venture to say that it's tenuous at best to suggest that a word of the day need be obscure. Intermediate-level words can be just as pleasing.

One of my go-to NYC pastimes is slowly working my way through the classic pizza joints. A recent gem that's new school but near the top of the list is L'Industrie. A recent COVID casualty is Sal's, a neighborhood joint in Carroll Gardens that appears to be gone; opened in 1956. :sad:

@unenlightened

I'll preorder the special edition.

I don't disagree, but I think beauty as a concept does in fact include things like comedy and tragedy. If anything, beauty is often best expressed via extremes like these. I posted this song in a different thread recently, but it illustrates what I mean. The song falls squarely in the tragedy category. "Hurt" was originally written by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who had a storied history of drug and alcohol abuse during the early days of his skyrocket to stardom; he wrote the song at a very young age, as a typical "woe is me" dark ballad of sorts; I'll post the original first. There's no question that the lyrics are honest, but the music suggests a sort of reveling in the pain. Something redolent of youth, to be sure. It's absolutely a song of self-absorbed pity; something I would argue is not beautiful.



8 years later, Johnny Cash covered the song on his last album, shortly before his death. The same song takes on an entirely different meaning. Self-absorbed pity becomes real regret, and yet beauty triumphs. The depth of the human experience is explored; this is essentially what beauty is; the human experience brought from the depths into reality. There's an anecdote of Trent hearing Johnny's cover for the first time, and divulging into tears. I don't mention this as an emotional argument...it illustrates what I'm describing.

Indeed, I do think ethics interfaces with art here (although NB that “beauty” and “good art“ are not synonyms on my account; nor “high art” and “good art”, nor “high art” and the “nobler purposes” to which art can be put that I mentioned earlier). — Pfhorrest

What I mean is that if there really is such a thing as a real, objective aesthetic standard, then, by nature, the standard is ethical. It's important to constantly remember that artistic expression is deeply human and deeply connected to the human experience. From my view, I have no problem with someone making arguments that there is no such thing as an aesthetic standard, at least in theory. I would almost rather consider those arguments than those that I'm about to describe: If you're going to hint at the existence of a real standard, flirt with it, but never commit...you can't do that; you have to go all the way. You (I'm saying this broadly) can't get away with a vague notion that art and ethics are connected; that beauty and goodness are connected. I mean, I guess you can if you honestly take a sort of agnostic approach (figuratively speaking) in the sense of, "there has to be an aesthetic standard, but I don't understand". Which is probably the position closest to mine anyway. But if so, you have to acknowledge your own lack of understanding. I don't know if that makes sense, this is just off the top of my head.

I agree with you on pretty much everything else you mentioned; again, the above paragraph is just my typical word vomit; feel free to ask questions. But I have a quick note on this:

Circling back again to rhetoric, as the archetypical medium, for illustration: an argument that successfully persuades someone to believe something false or to intend something bad is thereby objectively bad rhetoric, even if the speaker meant his words to do so and so would subjectively consider his rhetoric good for its success, because by objective standards false things are not to be believed and bad things are not to be intended and so rhetoric is not meant, by those standards, to persuade people to do so, and in succeeding at doing what it is not meant to do, that rhetoric thereby fails at doing what it is meant to do, and is thereby bad rhetoric. — Pfhorrest

I think it's fine to compare rhetoric and art and notice similarities in delivery and interpretation of the two, but I don't think it's correct to lump them together (which I'm not sure if you're doing or not, but I'm not assuming you are. Just making a remark here). Rhetoric clearly functions within philosophy, as a way to potentially deliver information (ideas) in a way that sort of meets the audience where they are, rather than requiring intense logical engagement with complex information. Art is nothing like that. To me, an important aspect of art is a sort of apophatic character; art, at it's best, can sometimes be like that annoying kid in grade school (or that annoying kid in philosophy 101 in college) who questions everything, and is contrary all the time. Art hates being cornered or defined. Just by nature, when you attempt to find a nice box for art, it makes sure to not fit.

Also, am I the only person who received consistent E grades on my English papers throughout high school and college?

I'll give myself a solid C+. @Baden receives a bespoke B via his name, and likewise, you receive an H.

There's a lot of artists on the forum. We just tend to not stick out.

Hey man, just letting you know I did see this, and am very interested in responding. I'll get back to you soon (ish? I'm an artist, I cant' lie)

Do you?

I avoided this thread for whatever reason, as a musician...I don't want to be that way, so here's something deep:

I didn't say there was no such thing as Banno's mother.

The analytic answer is that there is no my red; that rather, red is a notion constructed by our communal use of language. — Banno

Is there a Banno's mother? (as a concept)

Good luck, dreamers

That's good because your thread apparently doesn't exist anymore.

Mee 2

In my opinion, if any manner of taste was truly to be called objectively superior, it would be a broader taste, capable of comprehending complex phenomena and so appreciating "high art", while still remaining capable of finding simple phenomena interesting and so appreciating "low art". — Pfhorrest

Yup, exactly. But a potential problem is that calling broad taste "superior" still suggests a hierarchy: broad taste is better than narrow "low art" taste.

"Objectively superior" suggests something almost ethical or moral. To have broad taste appears to be almost morally (or at least vaguely philosophically) better than to have narrowly "low" taste; it hints at the "universal"; to have broad taste would seem to mean having universal taste.

Is there a fundamental unit(s) of thought? — Daniel

If there is, we certainly don't have a word or concept for it. Which brings up the question of to what extent it actually exists, and on what level (or in what sense), if it does...metaphysical? Conceptual? Physical? Spiritual? Mental?

...Confused we fall?

:up: I go back and forth on this a lot. One thing I've come up with is that "meaning", as understood even within the confines of this idea of life having meaning only in the present, is a concept that stems from some sort of metaphysical "meta-meaning" situation. We thought life had meaning in relation to an afterlife, but now we've amended that, and, using the same language, we say that life only has meaning in the now. And then it gets twisted up with some concepts borrowed from Hinduism or Buddhism.

I think we probably agree, but I'm not following you.

If you worry, you give me a headache! — Koen

Sorry about your headache! It must be unbearable.

Aside from the obvious questions, my only question is...why is it that if I enjoy my life, yours is made easier? From your perspective, as a solipsist?

There seem to be basic, agreed upon parameters for what defines specific forms of art. A painting on a canvas seems to be traditionally understood as being complete without anything else to it. That's not to say that it must be this way. Artistic forms seem to solidify over time, although always in flux. But I don't think the artist statement is some kind of cutting edge evolution of the painting. It draws the viewer away from the painting. Evolution in the craft of paining would be something more like the use of three dimensional texture within the confines of paint; mixing paint with materials that add noticeable three dimensional texture, for instance; sand, or something. Or scraps of literal garbage. I'm still way more interested in something like that than I am in artist statements.

Heh, I was making a sarcastic joke about how threads like this one about the afterlife have been increasingly moved by Mods to the Lounge, a section of the forum that does not appear on the main page, essentially relegating such threads that the mods find unseemly to the graveyard. A convenient way to get rid of them without outright deleting them. I for one think about the conundrum of an afterlife quite often, and find it to be a very philosophical and worthwhile topic of discussion.

I love this topic. Sad to see it in the Lounge, as usual, nowadays.

I would hesitantly take nostalgia one step further and say that, not only is it sense data memory -> emotional response, but there's one further arrow, which is -> meaning. Nostalgic experiences feel like they get at the root. It may be a total illusion, and maybe that feeling is just a more complex emotion working unconsciously.

Sayonara; off to the lounge with you!

Nice. A heavy hitter member posts a Rolling Stone article, and it doesn't get moved to the lounge. Quite a high quality post.

Oy, I'm glad to see some activity on this thread, but I worry that we're just divulging into a dick measuring contest about obscure words, which was certainly never what @T Clark, our father, intended.

Words of the day should have a certain something to them, no?

In an attempt to bring things back a bit, I offer a word that to me is interesting, but not one used to measure appendage length, although it's fairly obscure. Maybe I'm speaking in circles now.

Tawdry.

And we live in a world where moderators make their cases for why they move threads via middle-school-level ad homs. And this is a strategy that anyone who observes your posts is well aware of, @StreetlightX. Can you offer an intelligent reason for why you moved this thread, instead of this embarrassing ad hom?

If you're not aware, @Baden and @jamalrob

All I know is that you spell your husband's name with a capital K at the end of his name, which tells me that the two of you are doing something right.

The Upanishads

I know you won't. What I really know is that folks like yourself will never even entertain the reality of something non-physical. Let's cut to the chase: you're scared of non-physicality, and that's why you keep relegating threads you don't like to the shoutbox, where they'll be conveniently forgotten.

Jainism is the entry point to the thread.

Try again.

Bullshit. You're saying that the question of heaven vs hell, within Jainism specifically is not worthy of the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum?

I edited my post to include STLX, but I'm not sure if that hits the notification system. So, @StreetlightX, why was this thread moved to the lounge?

Why is thread in the lounge rather than Phil of Religion?

@StreetlightX

I've been looking for this word without fully realizing it, thanks. I may have to add you to the credits to my next album...

:clap:

:fire:

Also, I realized as it went on, that I was falling into a tight repetitive meter — csalisbury

I relate to this.

Believe it or not, my enjoyment of both turgid and turbid as words is purely poetic; but the potential for sexual jokes was not lost on me.

I already knew the answer guys, but because it is the WORD of the DAY common sense would dictate the word be defined or at least used in an example sentence. — Sir2u

I prefer to present a word of the day without context; I like words because of how they sound, not because of what they mean. It circles back to that thread I made about artist statements...

In that spirit, today's word is French, but has meaning within English in the wine world: vigneron. There is poetry to the word that may get lost without context. But again, I merely present the word. It's poetic potential is based on individual perspective; for me to attempt to provide perspective may only subtract from the word's poetic potential.