If you are going to claim that the English scholars have any authority over a non-scholar (even if it is just their opinion is more true, rather than absolute truth) I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify that authority, for the reasons I've given above. — Isaac
it [Michael Bay film] wouldn't teach you anything of value. — NKBJ
some art is better than other art — NKBJ
Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value. — NKBJ
These people are never going to ‘get’ art. They don’t understand what others are talking about. — Brett
The fact that they are English scholars who have spent much more time and effort looking at these things than the layperson means that they are authorities on the subject. They've read more art, thought about it more, and read more analyses thereof, and are therefore in a better position to judge the merit of any given artpiece than you are. — NKBJ
(it's just that it's not unreasonable to infer that scholars are likely to be more knowledgeable about their field than the layman) — Baden
I would presume though that your interlocutors including me would be able to justify their opinions in more detail if it came to a conversation on that level. It might take time to do it, but I'm pretty sure I could give detailed reasons why Michael Bay movies are artistically inferior to Shakespeare's plays. I'm much less convinced the converse can be done. — Baden
Scholars are certainly not unquestionable, but we can infer they are at least likely to be knowledgeable about their field. Do you agree? — Baden
The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon. — Isaac
No, I'm afraid this is where we differ. It hinges on the 'knowledge' you're supposing them to have. I agree that they would know more about the play's history, the meaning of some of the terms and a fuller memory of the work. But if you start getting into interpretation, no amount of multiplication makes it more likely to be true (not without running into the authority problems I raised above). The fact that scholars have learnt a lot about what other scholars think/thought, does not at any time render this 'knowledge' of the type that would justify their authority. — Isaac
The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon. — Isaac
I think the example I gave explains it. There are certain preference claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that strawberry flavour ice-cream is better than chocolate flavour ice-cream if you prefer chocolate ice cream. And there are certain factual claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that the temperature today is 50 degrees Celsius if you have carried out reliable and corroborated measurements that show it's 15. Questions of artistic merit fall somewhere in between. Whether or not we can agree, it is not senseless to have the debate. We can give reasons based on what art is and what it's supposed to do with reference to the genre it's a part of.
I could (in theory) over the next few weeks write millions of words about Michael Bay's films, would the quality of his films actually change as I write the words? — Isaac
No, but you may be able to uncover aspects of Michael Bay's films that show they had more quality all along than was recognized. And it's possible that people reading your words may change their level of appreciation on understanding your arguments. Classes on art appreciation, for example, are not a con. There is something to be appreciated. Teaching someone to try to prefer strawberry flavour to chocolate flavour, on the other hand, is likely to be a waste of time. — Baden
It might take time to do it, but I'm pretty sure I could give detailed reasons why Michael Bay movies are artistically inferior to Shakespeare's plays. I'm much less convinced the converse can be done. — Baden
The fact that they are English scholars who have spent much more time and effort looking at these things than the layperson means that they are authorities on the subject. They've read more art, thought about it more, and read more analyses thereof, and are therefore in a better position to judge the merit of any given artpiece than you are.
You keep on positing that they could be wrong. Yes. That's possible. But it's far more likely that the people who've only read a couple of Shakespeare plays, didn't care for it much and thus never gave it much more thought have no idea what they're talking about when they want to dismiss his work. — NKBJ
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. — NKBJ
It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't? — NKBJ
I don't know what YOU learned, but then you are not the barometer of artistic quality. — NKBJ
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. — NKBJ
I do, however, tip my hat to this fellow who gave it one heck of a shot. — NKBJ
But one does not walk away from them a better person, or filled with new ideas about philosophy, or enriched in any meaningful way. — NKBJ
but it's not the multi-faceted approach you get from, say, Hamlet. — NKBJ
This tells me you haven't spent much time actually analyzing Shakespeare. But maybe you have, and it's meaning has eluded you. — NKBJ
But show some humility for crikey's sake: — NKBJ
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. — NKBJ
If the student isn't engaged and is just hacking some 'stupid requirement,' the class may even be counter-productive, a turn-off -- especially if the teacher doesn't inspire respect. It's just hard to see what purpose forced and graded literary studies serve other than indoctrination, and some of my classes in the humanities did feel like lengthy sermons, with a little knowledge sprinkled on top at no extra charge. — old
What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give.
It's not true that he IS great outside of that context, outside of persons feeling how they feel about him.
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
Good and evil are not inherent to any type of being. Notice it is not people vs robots. There are good and bad people and good and bad robots. There are good and bad Americans, and good and bad people from other countries. Sometimes good people do bad things, and some people are just jerks. Sounds like Shakespeare :roll: — ZhouBoTong
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.