As far as I know the right not to be governed by Boris Johnson is currently enjoyed by all non-UK citizens and may soon be enshrined in EU law.

I don't know if i'm smart enough for this site — James Statter

It's not all about being "smart" anyway. A lot of it is choosing the right topics to get involved in (i.e. those you know enough to contribute to), making a sincere effort when you do post, and showing some charity and restraint in your interactions with others on here (though most of us are guilty of not doing that at times, including we all-too-humans on the mod team).

Anyway, welcome.



Thanks for the positive feedback. :up:

Although this new decoupling of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration is apparently not the MV originally intended and it's a dog's dinner.

Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.

Looks like the only chance of a win for May is if she schedules the third MV for April 1st.

Absolutely... :scream:

Sure, I only wanted to make the point that the debate is open, as in judgements of merit can develop over time.

Probably. Thanks :up:

That's good to hear. I had to read P and P for my high school exams and wasn't a fan. On the plus side, I had Hamlet and Death of a Salesman too.

Important to emphasize you can separate liking or disliking a work from recognising its artistic merit. I'd rather read Lord of the Rings than Pride and Prejudice. I don't know which one is a better work of art though. And a lot of Ulysses, I don't like at all but I recognize it as one of the greats.

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'd agree with that, certainly.

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

They would also have a grasp though on elements of the work like plot and characterization that most wouldn't. For example, I like Thomas Pynchon's writing but I don't 'get' 'Gravity's Rainbow'. It seems all over the place plot-wise and I haven't been able to finish it. I suspect though if I read more intelligent criticism on it, I might understand it more and be able to enjoy it more. So, I expect it is a great work of art despite my inability to get into it. And the fact that many intelligent commentators and readers appreciate it is at least part of the reason I feel it's worth pursuing more than stuff that's been universally panned.

I added the below to my post in an edit btw:

(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

This seems to me to be uncontroversial and is similar to what @NKBJ is saying. Scholars are certainly not unquestionable, but we can infer they are at least likely to be knowledgeable about their field. Do you agree?

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_of_William_Shakespeare

"In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564–1616) was rated as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but since the late 17th century he has been considered the supreme playwright and poet of the English language."

If memory serves, the 'elites' of the time viewed his plays roughly only on the level that we view popular drama today.

Maybe there's some talk at cross purposes then. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make and should be allowed to make an argument re the artistic merit of any work. It's the argument that ultimately matters not whether or not they're a scholar (it's just that it's not unreasonable to infer that scholars are likely to be more knowledgeable about their field than the layman). And this happens organically over time. Shakespeare wasn't always considered a great artist. And it's not impossible Michael Bay will become more elevated with time too. I just haven't seen anyone make an argument that would support that theory. And someone simply saying that they prefer his movies (or simply saying they prefer Shakespeare, for that matter) is not an argument.

So what's your reasoning for believing that? How would such a system work for you? Do things become more objective the more people believe them (that seems fraught with social and political problems to me), or do things become more objective the more justification someone can give (if so, how do we decide what justification counts without succumbing to the problems of the first option)? I'm just not seeing how this scalar objectivity would work. — 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.

The false dilemma issue keeps cropping up. First of all, everything scholars say about Shakespeare can't be true because they disagree sometimes. Secondly, just because everything that say isn't true, doesn't mean the consensus that Shakespeare was a great writer and some other writers weren't is false. It's not 'just' an opinion that is no better than any other random opinion nor is it objectively true the way, say, physical measurements are. There are degrees of objectivity. You don't jump straight from subjective (just an opinion of no greater worth than any other as if you were discussing ice-cream flavours) to unquestionable objective truth (as in demonstrable scientific fact). There's loads of room in between those two and that's where artistic judgements lie. And you don't have to accept any particular artistic judgement, but if you can't make an argument for your particular judgement, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you. Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. It's not impossible they're wrong but they're winning the argument.

Just found a 'purely objective' and an 'absolute proof' among my posts since my decrying of all things emphatic-adjectival. :cry:

But, you're probably 23 — Jake

@S is 30 I think.

I didn't miss that part, I ignored it. — Isaac

Then you obviously straw-manned him. There are good reasons why slavery was wrong (and why anti-semitism is wrong). Nobody is making an argument purely from popular opinion here otherwise Michael Bay would win out over Shakespeare hands down.

The point these people (myself included) are arguing against is the misuse of common agreement to get controversial opinions passed without argument by appeal to it. — Isaac

Again, one example of that would be a claim that Michael Bay movies have artistic value because many people enjoy them.

You seem to engineer your responses to shy away from a simple statement of the main things a work of art is supposed to do, such that art can be compared by its ability to achieve it. I'm not looking for an exhaustive list, but I am looking for some measures which support your claim of objectivity. — Isaac

I'm not making a claim of "objectivity". There is no purely objective stance that can be taken on art. There are though good reasons to believe certain works are more artistic than others. Sometimes that justification needs to be made and sometimes it doesn't. And there are thousands of works out there on art theory and criticism that do justify artistic judgements.

So, can the elites get it wrong? Sure, of course, why not? But if by "elites", all you mean is people who actually make an effort at understanding, examining, analyzing and writing about art then it's at least more likely that they'll have something to say worth listening to than random people who make no effort to understand art, don't appreciate it, and speak primarily from a position of ignorance. Can we agree on that at least?

You missed the part where he said 'for no good reason'.

There are posters around here who would, in the name of philosophy, point at turds in toilet bowls and babble "Why is this objectively worse than a gourmet meal! Prove it! PROVE IT! Objectively! Philosophically! Rationally!..? Why? Why? WHY?" falsely imagining because they said some words smart people regularly use, some of it must inevitably rub off on them. The correct response is: You feel thus? Fine, eat the turd, I'll stick to the chicken soup. Any further time spent on them is likely to be effort wasted.

The final part of my argument above wasn't aimed at your points, but at the superficial skeptics extant here. Establishing that Hamlet is 'better' than 'Harry Potter' or the 'Lord of the Rings' would require much qualification. Better at what? Better art? Probably... but all three works mentioned have definite merits and are the result of much skill and creativity, and it would take an extensive analysis to do a proper evaluative comparison. So, dismissing them out of hand would be elitist, I agree. A Michael Bay movie, on the other hand, is primarily a bunch of visual porn, the movie equivalent of a brief sugar high, and isn't worth discussing in terms of art.

:scream:

You become what you do. Act compassionate towards little potential-orphan Wallows and both of you will know compassion. (But don't forget to (metaphorically) kick his ass when he's being a dick too).

Doesn't every male fantasize about being big and strong and look like Arnold Schwarzenegger? — Wallows

No. That's where the neuroticism comes in. Most males will never be able to have a body like Arnold no matter how much drugs they pump themselves with. So, desire x continued frustration of desire = neuroticism. Until they get some sense and concentrate on stuff they can actually achieve.

So it's not so much that Hamlet can't provide any learning, it's that, if it does, such learning is difficult to measure, may well be subjectively better for some people than others and is of an indefinable sort. How then can one be so sure that Hamlet is definitely better at this sybilline task than any other story? — Isaac

The fact that it's been remembered and celebrated for centuries is evidence, if not absolute proof, that it's better than most at whatever it does. Whether it's better in a particular context depends on the story it's being compared to, what's supposed to be being learned, and who is doing the learning. As in most cases, when you say A is better than B, it's advisable to qualify your statement. A is better than B, for what? for who? In what context? Some people will be immediately turned off Hamlet because of the difficulty of understanding the antiquated language. Some people just don't like plays. The plot may confuse or bore others. And if a work of art can't engage you, it probably can't teach you much.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean there are no criteria under which the potential for learning can be examined or under which to make aesthetic judgements. Basic grammar standards along with style manuals can guide judgements on how badly or well books are written. Colour theory helps inform criticism of painting. Plots have structures that can be analysed and evaluated etc.

Re the latter, for example, here's a plot for a short story:

A woman joins a philosophy forum, makes a post and then drinks a cup of tea and goes to bed. The next morning she wakes up and goes to work. When she's finished work, she comes home and has her dinner. She then goes to bed again.

Not very good, is it? Why? Well, for a start it's not structured in such a way as to engage the reader (it's not even in the genre of narrative, so there's an argument it's not even a story rather than just a recount of events). There's no suspense. Nothing of interest happens. To most people, this general point would be obvious. But some (I don't mean you btw) will insist on arguing the false dilemma that because there can be no absolutely objective criteria re judging art, anything goes, and there's no way to say any one piece of art has more value than another or to claim something as art and something as not, which is a tiresome and boring position to take that suggests not much more than said person knows nothing about art or art theory, and instead of learning something about it would rather do other things such as spend time watching shit movies and resenting anyone who doesn't, or making arguments that aren't really arguments but are just complaints, and generally employ the pretence of intelligence to dig a hole under common sense into which they hope to drag everyone else into. To which I respond, if it's elitist not to join them in their bunkers, I'll gladly don the mantel.

How do you explain the psychology of a Bob? — Wallows

You mean of a bodybuilder?

Is this all some neuroticism or "self-actualization"? — Wallows

The former.

Yes, it can, but there will tend to be costs in terms of social capital. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. And so most nails learn a preference for staying down. Homogeneity is always a matter of degree though. And again you'd need to have a theoretical lens through which to examine it in order to uncover much of interest.

You'd have to come up with some criteria to quantify levels of socialization. I'm not sure how you'd do that in an uncontroversial way. The US regularly gets high survey scores in the area of individualism vs collectivism in Hofstede's cultural dimensions model, for example, whereas Israel gets more of a median score*. So, that's a measure, roughly speaking, of how much people prefer "doing their own thing" and I guess that's what you're pointing to with your comparison. But does that mean Americans are less "socialized" than Israelis? Not necessarily. Americans watch more TV, are more medicated, and are exposed to more advertising and corporate control than the citizens of almost any other country out there. These are all effects that could fall under the umbrella term of socialization. Note too that being an individualist is not necessarily being individualized. So, it's really hard to make comparisons without theory building first. Show me your theory of socialization vs individualization and make sure it's coherent, self-consistent, open and sophisticated enough to handle international comparisons and I'll apply it. But by then you'll already know the answer...

* https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/israel/



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hofstedes-Cultural-Dimension-Model-Hofstede-1991-p28_tbl1_220500429

When I use 'learn' I generally mean the acquisition of facts, data or something like that. — Isaac

That's a rather narrow perspective on learning though. It's not primarily how you learned your language or how to ride a bike or about the foibles and idiosyncrasies of your family and friends etc. So, I agree it's difficult to quantify what you can learn from a novel or a work of art, but there are different types of knowledge that are more or less easy to make explicit and that ease does not necessarily define their worth. So, if statistics and data are the types of learning you value then yes, why wade through a novel when you can Google these facts or use Wikipedia or a textbook etc? But human nature is something you've been learning through observation since early childhood and good novels can provide virtual scenarios that are realistic and engaging enough to allow you to learn about social interaction and human psychology in a similar way to how you "naturally" learn it in everyday life—without having to be explicitly aware of exactly what you learned. In other words, you might not be able to put the new knowledge into words, but your character alters in such a way that you behave differently. And the behavioural change is the test of useful knowledge having been acquired.

Mybe my fusty academic outlook, but I'm not seeing what there is left to 'learn' from, say Richard III, that a good psychology textbook and a History of England can't tell you better. — Isaac

Here is maybe where it comes down to taste. There are people who are not very academic who would prefer to learn about history or psychology through a play rather than a textbook. And what they lose in accuracy they may make up for in depth. Again, it's fine to have a bunch of accurate statistics running about in your head, but without the question, what are they for? being answered, there is no way to measure whether that knowledge is of greater worth than whatever less explicit knowledge is gleaned through an alternative source, which may have a more direct (and positive) use/effect.

And these kinds of learning don't have to be in competition. The philosopher John Searle probably has more explicit knowledge filling up his head than the vast majority of us, but he says he learned most of what he knows about human nature from Dostoevsky. Go figure...

Well, 'my reality' vs 'your reality' would be more of a psychological difference than a metaphysical one. There's an issue of mixing discourses. Context is key, of course. If you can really justify a distinction, go ahead and make it.

I think the point is that if your only purpose is emphasis and there's no clear distinction to be made in context then the addition of the adjective to the concept is at best superfluous. Which is OK in everyday conversation i.e. "This steak is absolute perfection", but a symptom of muddled thinking in philosophical discourse.

And your examples don't really match up with un's.

Numerous historical reports of adjective-hybrid usage by folks with PhDs and other such absolute amaziball credentials makes their legitimacy unquestionable in a truly* meaningful way. Should you have doubts, I have pictures I photoshopped myself on a website I produced while smoking some stonkingly* super Afghan.

*Excuse the adverbs—poetic licence.

I already spend too much time here, so I think I'll give Hanover's Moonshine Mountain a miss. But I'll send you some fresh banjo strings or something as a token of my affection.

@Isaac
Let's not criticize art for not being what it's not supposed to be. Fiction is called fiction to distinguish it from fact. Novels ought to be read with that in mind, and Dickens is not responsible for anyone making historical claims of accuracy re his works. So, yes, if you want unbiased, factually accurate and corroborated representations of reality, go for a history book by a reputable scholar and not Oliver Twist, that's obvious. But that doesn't imply that you can't learn something from Oliver Twist or any other novel. You just need to judge it by different standards.

The two are intertwined. The individual is social and society is composed of individuals. So, individualization is a process whereby the socialized individual develops his or her character in a way that defines them apart from other individuals in the social context. And socialization is, in a broad sense, the production of individuals as persons in the first place. It begins more or less from birth. So, there's always some degree of individualization and some degree of socialization, and it's not a zero sum game either.

But your question is not very clear. Are you confused about the concepts or looking for advice on how to apply them to your own life? Or what?