Comments

  • Contributing to Society
    Much better to give because you care, not because you are playing a game quid pro quo.
    — Wheatley

    There's a third option, which is that you give out of a feeling of obligation because it's your duty. I'd submit that is the highest option and the one you summarily reject.
    Hanover

    I count these option as very similar...in another thread I recently suggested that all obligations only exist "because I care". If I didn't care about "duty" then I would have no obligation to it? Similarly, if I don't care about morality or the law, then I have no obligation toward them (or if my opinions on law/morality are different then we would have very different obligations)...aren't all MY obligations just MY opinion of what I owe to other people/things/concepts?

    Wouldn't an even "higher" option be to do what is right (what we think is right) even though you are not "obligated"?
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    Well, according to the ancient Greeks, Frankie's doxic noncommital - "lack of belief" in g/G - is ἄθεος (atheos), or in contemporary parlance: atheism. :yikes:180 Proof

    :rofl: Sounds about right to me.
  • The Obsession with Perfection
    I take your silly perfect Chinese Ming vases and I raise you the Japanese art of Kintsugi:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi
    Artemis

    I know this is an old post, but it's new to to me, haha.

    I just wanted to say nicely done. Very pertinent addition to the thread...I knew the Japanese concept of wabi-sabi (thanks to King of the Hill), but had never heard of Kintsugi. Very neat counter to the OP, both artistically and philosophically...shows there are cultures that do not have the same passionate obsession with perfection.
  • Contributing to Society
    Maybe we could get alcontali to explain further.frank

    I think that is exactly what Isaac was looking for :grimace: (not explain the workings of Islam, but why he felt that specific point was correct)

    But I think that is 3 posts in a row of me assuming the thoughts of another poster...so I should probably stop that...carry on :smile:
  • Contributing to Society
    I think alcontali was justifying it by pointing to scholars. That's appropriate. Is alcontali trying to convert us all to Islam?frank

    Yes, but it shows that they just believe it because they were told it is right. Only the scholars can understand why, right?
  • Contributing to Society
    You were asking for scripture.frank

    I thought he was just asking for justification of a belief. Why does that require a Muslim scholar? Sure they may have had to do the initial interpretation, but surely they explain reasons to the believers? Especially for believers that are going to go out and practice Muslim apologetics.
  • Contributing to Society
    I am quite happy to toss a few extra coins in the hat to cover for you, not because I expect anything particular in return. But because I want to live in a community where there is schooling and health care for everyone, where I can pass people in the street and share a smile.And because I am confident that what goes around comes around. And because I can. And because I know other people do the same. And because other people have covered for me in the past.A Seagull

    I only believe the bolded bit to the extent that we impact the world we live in (if I directly help a poor person I don't expect direct help for myself someday...but the action helps me to live in the type of community I want to live in...which I suppose could be exactly what you meant), but everything else deserves a big :up:
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic.Frank Apisa

    Ok, but then I get to bet that every person you ask will assume they are of above average intelligence (everyone assumes they are of above average intelligence). So what?

    Part of my argument is that for some reason, agnostics side with theists, even though their view is a lot closer to that of an atheist (I still can't see a difference other than the labels they give themselves). When most Christians in America hear "agnostic" they hear "searching for god" (earlier in my philosophical journey...this is actually the reason I stopped calling myself agnostic...later I learned definitions). So of course they will side with agnostics against the atheist....they think the agnostics are one of their people...oh, and they think atheists are Satan's spawn.

    So is the OP's confusion - for charity's sake, ignore his tediously repetitive argumentum ad populum - contagious?

    Have I / we caught it too?
    180 Proof

    Whooo...I can feel that. I start to feel confusion any time I argue with an agnostic...or libertarians, but we can ignore that one for now. I always have to go back and re-read my posts to try and find their purpose (it is healthy in that I can find where my wording was problematic...but then I try new words and hit the same wall).

    I feel that you and I have very different writing styles...so if neither of us are making any headway (and @DingoJones has put in some serious effort as well), I am not sure this will go anywhere. I sometimes get bored of these arguments...but then a week later they suddenly seem very interesting again (even with a lack of progress).
  • Contributing to Society
    The argument that since society provides me with benefits, it wouldn't be right if I provided nothing in return, is complete bullshit.Wheatley

    Another way to look at it is that everyone DOES contribute. If "contribute" means more than our career and spitting out babies, then everyone contributes by existing. Didn't this OP just contribute to the lives of those of us who choose to respond?

    Overall though, I think I agree with your general sentiment.

    The only reason why I would do anything for society is because I care about other people, not because there is any moral obligation because there isn't.Wheatley

    For me, "because I care" is the only real reason for an obligation.
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist

    2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist

    3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction

    and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...
    Frank Apisa

    Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??

    Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction.
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.Frank Apisa

    And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?

    While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question?
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    So the agnostic that can't stand atheists was just told to look at the big picture that says "everyone who is not a theist is only that way because their life has been so easy they did not have to 'turn' to religion".

    I got a nickel on no complaint from the agnostic. But heaven forbid we say, "the way we identify ourselves as atheists would mean that we see agnostics as part of the same club". Why are they so offended?

    This is why some atheists assume agnostics are really just theists searching for the right god.
  • The legitimacy of power.
    Ok, I see where you are going now. I was not viewing things from that perspective and I see your point. I am still going to argue :grimace:, but I think we will see it is mostly semantics and definitions.

    One way of imposing your will on another is to argue with their point of view and convince them that they’re wrong.Brett

    For me, "impose" means "forced" (or at least includes "forced"). I am not sure I agree that convincing is ever "forced"...? (I just looked up the definition and it has a "forced" aspect...but I can also see different potential interpretations...I am going to continue to argue in relation to "forced"...but know that I know that is not the only way that "impose" can be understood).

    And if someone was morally contemptible, a paedophile for instance, then why wouldn’t anyone try to impose their will on that person?Brett

    Once people are harming society, they have given up their right to not be imposed upon. Yes, all people in jail were imposed upon....and I am sure I agree that many of them should be in jail for the protection of the rest of us. However, America is a good example of improper imposing. Many of our prisoners are non-violent and never harmed a soul other than themselves (drugs are the most common reason we put people in jail).

    And generally, those truly imposing their will are breaking the law. Another interesting side thought...once we have created the rule of law...are we imposing our will or just carrying out policy? (if anyone'e "will" is being imposed, they are often long dead??)

    If trickery or violence (or the threat of) is used, then a will has been imposed. If someone knowingly changes their mind, I think I just presented some information that allowed them to change their mind. (I would also point out that the libertarian non-aggression principle would be totally fine with trickery...I disagree...but just mentioning it as a philosophy that would ONLY see violent methods as "imposing will").

    I may have to run soon, but will certainly respond over the next couple days.
  • The legitimacy of power.
    I don’t think it necessarily means it’s morally admirable.Brett

    Fair, that is likely me putting my perspective into things. Morals aren't right or wrong, they are admirable or frowned upon (my perspective).

    I don't mind seeking a more universal wording. If he (or very unlikely, she) is just saying morally acceptable, not morally admirable, then I don't see the point. If we are just discussing things that are neither good nor bad (neither admirable nor deplorable), then I am not sure "moral" has a whole lot to do with it??

    If I am not saying anything along the lines of what you were thinking, feel free to change the direction of things.
  • The legitimacy of power.
    In that sense, the problem of power abuse is mostly caused by people who refuse to take revenge,alcontali

    Modern society has decided that revenge is immoral and hinders the function of society. This change has not just been western culture. Revenge was part of the Samurai way of life, and yet it was outlawed almost immediately after the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Modern society doesn't function with revenge killings.

    "Revenge" is a very weak concept morally anyway. I don't need "revenge" for my feelings, I need to stop this person before she kills someone else's family.

    As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to "impose your will upon another"alcontali

    Well of course it is allowed...what is god going to reach down and stop you? Who or what would not allow it? You are really saying it is morally admirable to force your will onto others. Good luck selling that.
  • Is philosophy making your life more enjoyable or less?
    I put up an OP then wonder why I did it, the responsibility.Brett

    haha, been there. Once I create it, I feel like I have to respond to every single post in the thread (after I get over bashing myself for a weak OP - probably why I have only started 4 or 5 threads).

    and agreement just kills an OP.Brett

    I try to remind myself that this is one place where being argumentative is good :smile:
  • Is philosophy making your life more enjoyable or less?
    Sometimes I wonder if it is philosophy or just the damned internet; another addiction.Brett

    Hahaha. I don't have that problem because I don't really enjoy most socializing. This site is the only social media I participate in (and even here, I had to lurk and read for years before I signed up - I know that is probably surprising because I sure love shouting my opinion at people...but I am not exactly proud of that aspect of my personality...I kind of use discussions here to get that out of my system - it doesn't work, I am still way too opinionated).

    I do play a lot of games that use the internet though, so that still probably counts as an internet addiction...and if you add in streaming tv, movies, or sports...I guess I am addicted to the internet too...but we could similarly say that people are addicted to having unlimited food selection options (the internet is incredible and world changing, of course we are addicted - not to mention that as psychology begins to understand addiction, businesses will use that information to create as many addicts as possible).
  • What is art?
    Is my judgement better than most because I have so much experience?Qwex

    I would actually say no. You can just explain your reasons for liking something better. You can break down and really analyze the specific aspects that cause you to like it. However, you have NO more ability to know what other people prefer and no reason for other people to view your opinion as correct. An art critic needs to be educated so they can thoroughly explain their reasons for like/dislike. That is NOT so we can view their opinions as objectively correct in any way. We just get some details to help us decide if the reviewed work is worth our time as something we might enjoy.

    In all genres of art, I have not found that my tastes change significantly as I learn more. I occasionally find things accessible that were previously unintelligible, but I do not notice a real change in my tastes.

    Are there lesser and greater judges of art?Qwex

    I would say there are better and lesser art ANALYSTS. But to call them "judges" gives them a power I do not think they deserve. I am not more likely to agree with a well educated art critic, I am just more likely to understand their reasons for liking/disliking.

    Anyway, I listen to all genres, classical - rap - metal - this is the best I've come across.Qwex

    Me too. Even country...although most country is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

    I thought the song in the video was fine. But nothing that particularly hooks me (I actually liked the screaming bits better than the rest). But if you say it is your favorite song, I can only agree. Who am I to tell you what your favorite song should be? Would you give that power to anyone? Could someone out there know so much about music that they could tell you that you are wrong and you would change your mind?
  • Is philosophy making your life more enjoyable or less?
    Interesting. I thought we were all here because we find this stuff (or some aspects of it) interesting. We may have more grand reasons we like to spew, but if we were not interested in the first place, we wouldn't bother.

    Personally, I am not interested in anything that I FEEL makes my life worse. That would be weird. If you view your philosophical practices as comparable to a drug addiction, then you must have recently flipped a switch where this is no longer interesting. You see no practical purpose, in fact you think it is making life worse. Sounds like you have already taken the first steps to overcoming your addiction (and it should be way easier to quit than drugs as there are far fewer chemicals involved).
  • About This Word, “Atheist”
    Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.)Frank Apisa

    Of course it was always about belief. Wait, unless there are KNOWN god(s) I haven't been told about?

    Just because people in the past KNEW there was a god(s), doesn't mean we can't KNOW that their knowledge was actually just belief.

    This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic.Frank Apisa

    Wait, so someone who lacks belief is a theist? Whatever else we add to "atheist", "not a theist" seems accurate, no?

    I guess then we are just arguing whether all non-theists are atheists...so, then we are just arguing whether there is room for a third option (and once we admit a third we should probably admit an infinite spectrum of possibilities). And this will just boil down to semantics and our interpretations of words.

    Atheists would leave the agnostics alone if they didn't often sound like theists who are just unsure of which god(s) to believe in :razz:
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    I hope that's a little "fuck you" to the DNC and the media.Xtrix

    One can dream :grin:

    FiveThirtyEight predicts that the fuckup of Iowa (or a hypothetical election where Iowa didn't happen) actually boosts Biden's chances:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-might-have-screwed-up-the-whole-nomination-process/
    Pfhorrest

    Or not :groan:
  • What is art?
    Your criticism of Sheakspeare's work is divorced from reality and it's focus on plot is naive. You should appreciate the context in which it was written and performed.Punshhh

    Why? That is not the context in which modern audiences experience his work. To study how audiences in Shakespeare's day appreciated the work would be a study in history more than a study in art. How would it change my view?

    As I have no idea how one would defend such stories based on the context of his time, please do so, and then we can see if you have a point.

    Surely there are hugely popular artists alive today that still have millions of people who hate their work..."The Irishman" comes to mind. No one should be immune from criticism, and no one is universally loved.

    I assume you think the more specific examples from Macbeth that I provided are also examples of good clever writing...they just need to be viewed in the context of the times?? I hope you aren't another one of the people that LOVES Shakespeare, but hasn't read it since high school.

    Even if I could be convinced that if I lived in Shakespeare's time and place that I would love his stories, that doesn't change the fact that I don't live then, and from today's perspective...they have some decent dialogue at best.

    And in case it is lost in all my Shakespeare bashing (and to at least somewhat relate to the OP)...this is all subjective and opinion based. I have not found any objective measures of art that work for me. So when I say "Shakespeare's stories stink" what I am really saying is "most people don't like them".

    I also don't like a lot of modern (or more modern) writers. But why am I so much more likely to get push-back when I bash Shakespeare than when I bash Tolkien?

    Sorry, a lot of partially connected thoughts there, I am trying to avoid going too long before I know you have some interest in an extended discussion on the merits of Shakespeare.
  • Why isn't happiness a choice?
    I've have some limited success in trying to focus on those little things I might otherwise have overlooked as a way to jump-start the feel-good pattern in my own brain.
    — Pfhorrest

    Do you think this is a skill. Because aren’t you essentially overriding the chemical negativity and purposely applying positive actions, that you know from experience help?
    Brett

    Do you even want to be happy all the time? Happy when bad shit happens? Happy when people near you are in trouble? Happy when the mad axeman asks you to bare your neck?unenlightened

    The same things that Pfhorrest describes above that helped him "learn" to be happy more often can apply to your scenarios. The goal would not be to be "happy" in each of those examples, but to be LESS upset, worried, or scared.

    When I am unhappy with things, I'm motivated to make them better - run away from the mad axeman, comfort the sick neighbour, clean up the shit.unenlightened

    And that is the purpose of negative emotions. However, most people feel them for far longer, and more intensely, than what is needed to act as motivation. Notice that if a person is too scared, they might freeze instead of run away.

    Right now I want to take away your happy pills 'coz they won't do you no good.unenlightened

    I would think you would NOT have to "take the happy" pills from someone who practices emotional control. While they can choose to be happy most of the time, they will have shaved off the highs and lows. Part of being happy all the time (or the vast majority) is never being ecstatically happy...with great highs come substantial lows.

    I have never studied Stoicism, but when people describe it here, it sounds very similar.
  • Mental Conception - How It Might Broaden Perspective
    So, you think 'imagination' is about math formulas and recursive algorithms (such as limits to infinity), and not about simulating the experience?Sir Philo Sophia

    No, I am saying I can absolutely simulate that experience in my imagination. I just have no idea how accurate my simulation is. I can imagine walking forever. I need to add in assumptions like immortality and understand that there is no reason that anyone/anything would want or need to walk forever. It is likely nonsense (similar to infinity) in our known reality. But that doesn't mean I can't imagine it. I am not imagining math or formulas I am imagining myself walking. Then I think about long walks. Then I think I would need fancy shoes or my feet start bleeding. Then I would need to live forever or I would be dead within 100 years. And wouldn't it get boring? This is all part of imagining.

    In this way, I'm saying that the only reason that Einstein could imagine space-time fabric relativity is because he existed and learned in an environment where the public imagination included sufficiently close knowledge and metaphors for him to imagine how to incrementally do some analogical morphing/variant/extension of (combination) of the thing(s) that were known/experienced at the time. Had Einstein lived in the time of the Greeks, I am saying there is no way he could have imagined even the basic concepts of relativity, not for lack of language or faculty of imagination, but for the handicap that Human imagination is (almost strictly) limited to evolutionary thought grounded by the framework of what is known/experienced by the culture around you.Sir Philo Sophia

    This seems to describe learning/knowledge as much as imagination? I agree that some knowledge is needed before more can be discovered. Counting is a requirement before one can conceive of addition or multiplication. I think we are describing 2 very different types of imagination.

    Your example certainly describes imagination, but it seems to be just one limited practical aspect of imagination.

    We can imagine anything, but individuals are limited by genetic and environmental factors...and imagining what life would be like if I was made of space butterflies is a lot different than imagining a better way to deliver groceries (Einstein's "imagination" is much closer to the grocery example).

    You are describing "imagination" that could serve a scientific purpose. Much of the imagination I am describing would have an artistic purpose AT MOST (it would often just be nonsense - a la imagining what it would feel like to walk forever).
  • Where is art going next.
    This is what the next art will grow from. You may not even recognise it as art, you might reject it, but it will exist. Just read the newspaper, watch the news, go on the internet, not to be informed but to see what others take in, which is nothing actually. More use of cartoons, animated toothbrushes, talking bananas, and that’s the advertising for adults. Taylor Swift: political activist, a candle that smells like Gwyneth Paltrow’s vagina. Truth, who can say what it means anymore.

    Maybe your life’s the new art. Greta Thunberg to trademark her name. We all become products,we’re all art, we’re all artists. Everything’s priceless, nothings for sale, we all live the illusion, we’re all perfect, we don’t have to do anything except be.
    Brett

    This all seems in line with my thinking (the bolded bit in particular, but I think it all works). I am not sure why we are so opposed in the other art thread. I think my hatred of Shakespeare is clouding our understanding of each other??
  • What is art?
    So to satisfy your demands for objective standards we can begin with that.Brett

    Wait, I am saying there cannot possibly be objective standards for art...so certainly I am not demanding objective standards. And what you have described is still not objective. Even most "grammar rules" are just suggestions once you are beyond the basics.

    I’m not concerned with your opinion on art. It’s irrelevant. Only you think it’s important and yet you profess to know little about art.Brett

    EVERYONE is just expressing an opinion. That is my point. When did I say I know little about art? I admit to having "poor" taste in art, but that is tongue in cheek as my whole point is that no one can have "poor" taste in art, just tastes that aren't popular.

    No ones saying that. Deeper knowledge allows you to work your way through the world of art, not to tell others what they should like.Brett

    But Shakespeare is "better" than Transformers? Sounds like you are telling people what to like.

    We’re not saying you should like something, we’re saying why some pieces have value in the world of art. No ones forcing you to go to an art gallery.Brett

    Why would I want to go to an art gallery to see art? The "best" art in the modern era is movies and television anyway (just an opinion, but unquestionably true if "best" is in anyway connected to "most popular").

    One last thing, care to list your reasons why the Shakespeare stories suck? Should be easy because it’s not even about language. Just pretend it’s a Batman movie.Brett

    Why do you act like I don't want to do this?? I have offered many times, but no one ever takes me up on it, haha. Let's keep this somewhat limited, I will give a couple specifics from MacBeth, and then quickly hit Romeo and Juliet as it is more obviously a mess from a modern perspective.

    In MacBeth, much of the prophecy stuff is nonsense. MacBeth can only be killed by a man who is not born of a woman and he can only die in the woods of some forest. These "prophecies" are just word games that do not even influence the story's outcome. MacDuff was "born" by c-section (I guess in Shakespeare's day people "born" by c-section were not actually "born"?!?). Also, although MacBeth never went near that one forest, the invading army made spears out of the trees. That is not the same thing. These are just dumb word games. They do not drive the story or influence the outcome (they do not even seem necessarily true/accurate/fulfilled). Shakespeare is full of stuff like this. He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times.

    Now to Romeo and Juliet. The story that takes place over 4 days and is about a 13 year old and 17 year old who are "deeply" in love, although they have not even met when the story begins (and the 17 year old is actually "deeply" in love with a different girl at the start) :roll: .

    If that is not enough to destroy that story, please let me know what you think the moral of the story is for Romeo and Juliet...? What do people learn by reading that story?
  • Mental Conception - How It Might Broaden Perspective
    I can imaging the concept of infinity, but can never enable my mind/imagination to in any way experience it.Sir Philo Sophia

    Well as we are talking about what can be imagined, not experienced, it seems you can imagine infinity. Whether your imagined experience matches an actual experience is impossible to know as no one can experience infinity. I also cannot experience travelling faster than the speed of light, and yet that is very regularly imagined.

    I'd be very interested if anyone as even one example of anything imagined that is not some analogical morphing/variant/extension of (combination) something(s) known/experienced.Sir Philo Sophia

    To me, this is just saying that we can't describe something that can't be described. Seems fair but barely relevant. Why would we care to imagine nonsense? If we did, notice that we couldn't put in into words, as those words are part of some "analogical morphing/variant/extension of (combination) something(s) known/experienced." So I just imagined something outside the framework you mentioned, but I can't prove it to you because it would require words (or pictures/symbols, etc)...and once put into words it is no longer separate from "some analogical morphing/variant/extension of (combination) something(s) known/experienced."
  • Mental Conception - How It Might Broaden Perspective
    For example, when you imagine you can fly, you are simply conceptualizing yourself ‘as is’ except with the ability to fly like birds or planes. No insight there, just less constrained by the ‘reality’ of gravity, as if you were in space.Sir Philo Sophia

    Didn't you just give us ideas on how to "imagine" things even more distant from our conceptual reality? I think I mostly agree with you...but what about the "beings of pure energy" that appear in a lot of fiction? I get they still are connected to the psychological "I" and they are still individuals, but then there are some shared "overmind" type concepts. I agree there must be limits on imagination...but to me it seems that as you describe the limits, you have given your mind a way to think beyond them.
  • What is art?
    Honestly to answer this I'll need to think. I will hail you later.Qwex

    Don't fret too much. I was sort of just playing on words. But it seems to me that "recreational space manipulation" is a fine way to describe art, but it doesn't help one understand it any better (and I would think oral stories are still art but they do not take up any physical space...??).
  • What makes a government “small”?
    You simply disagree with the majority of people about your list, but (unless you're authoritarian) you agree that democracy is the best way of resolving that difference.Isaac

    The fact that most people want this kind of authoritarianism does not suggest that I need to accept it.NOS4A2

    So you don't agree that democracy is the best way of settling that difference?

    Just because you want that type of authoritarianism doesn't mean we have to accept it :razz:
  • What is art?
    Is art recreational space manipulation?

    Painting on a canvas manipulates the space of the canvas.

    I might be wrong.
    Qwex

    Does that mean life/existence is professional space manipulation?
  • What is art?
    You might be able to see where I’m going here.Brett

    You are right about what is "good" art because you know more than me about art? How do we decide who knows more?

    If you want to understand art, tell good from bad, then you need to educate yourself.Brett

    Hmmm, I am not sure this has any relevance on my opinion of art. When I was young, I liked action movies and I disliked Shakespeare. When I got older, and understood Shakespeare better, I did not suddenly like it. I just understood WHY I didn't like it. I can admit there is some clever writing in there, but the stories suck (solely from my perspective...I can list reasons and am sure some others would agree, but nothing objective or universal).

    Learning about art allows me to learn about myself. I begin to understand why I like/dislike certain things...I DON'T SEE HOW MY DEEPER KNOWLEDGE OF ART ALLOWS ME TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD LIKE...isn't that what you are doing if you attempt to objectively label some art "good" and some "bad"?
  • What is art?
    Of course I can. But you’re just playing philosophy games. In this world you need to know when you’re being lied to, deceived and misinformed. Sure people lie, but I’m talking about a person who is a liar all the time, who deceives you then takes your watch.Trying living without that understanding and reality. Maybe you spend your days in your bedroom, I don’t know, but try living the way you imply with your dancing around words and sentences and see where it gets you. So let’s try and stick to the world outside your front door.Brett

    Sure. which is why in my initial post I said we could come up with comparable "suggestions" for good/bad art. As long we don't think they are anywhere near absolute objective rules.
  • On Equality
    Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table.BitconnectCarlos

    Nope. I was just explaining why it could be considered "appalling", nothing more.

    You are way beyond a strawman here. Why stop at height? True equality would demand equality everywhere. Therefor all 7 billion humans would have to be the exact same person. Same name. Same sex. Same brain. Same job. Same spouse. Same kids. Same bowel movements. Etc. This is all the same type of nonsense as your equal height thing.

    To be fair, I can admit there are some jokers out there seeking "total equality", but they are very rare despite what fox news says...I doubt you can find one on this site.
  • What is art?
    Relativist games. How does it work for you on the street, in a bar?Brett

    You can't think of any examples where lying is beneficial? Feels like absolutist games to me.
  • What is art?
    But it’s possible you could determine whether a piece of art was “good” or “ bad” on the same basis that you decide whether a person is good or bad. We might determine whether a person is good or bad by their behaviour, how they present themselves.Brett

    Alright, back to arguing art with you again :grin: Let me know if I get too annoying.

    There are only a few people in history where there is near universal agreement on them being good or bad, so that seems to suggest how difficult it would be to come up with universal measures for art.

    A bad person would be dishonest, deceitful, misleading, a liar, misrepresents himself, mean spirited or insincere.Brett

    For me, someone could absolutely be all of these temporarily and still be good. I would go as far as saying each of those traits, or all of them in combination, could be used to accomplish good things.

    Now, I am also happy to say that those are typically negative traits that should generally be frowned upon. Similarly, I could say that MOST stick-figure art is bad. But to create true objective parameters, they would have to be universal; and because "good art" is often created by atypical geniuses, this seems impossible. Notice if I paint a clock it is terrible, but if Dali paints a clock it is good.

    I wouldn't mind some general guidelines or parameters that OFTEN define "bad art" but I don't think you could sell me on anything universal.

    Remember I still think Transformers is better than MacBeth.

    And just to provide an example, despite me not liking him, Shakespeare is a perfect example of an atypical genius. There is a whole movement of anti-stratfordians who argue that Shakespeare could not have written these stories because he is just a townie. Only some wealthy noble would have the depth and breadth of knowledge to write that. But that is elitist BS nonsense. The vast majority of rich and educated could not write those books either. It is hard to define genius before we experience it, and that is what art rules would feel like to me.
  • On Equality
    Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil.BitconnectCarlos

    Except there is no magic wand, so equality of height would require some combination of eugenics, surgery, or malnutrition. Sounds rather appalling??
  • What is art?
    So taste is complex, and to suggest that that complexity can be boiled down and answer the broader question of what makes art "good" or "bad" feels like an oversimplification.

    In other words the simple facts of taste (real or fake) and power structure within the art world don't actually have anything to say about the concept of a concrete aesthetic standard.
    Noble Dust

    I feel like I agree, but may be missing your exact point. The line you quoted from was me making fun of (or attempting to) the idea that someone else can tell me I am "right" or "wrong" when I say I like something.

    Is taste so complex that it cannot be simplified to "I like it" or "I don't"? All of the factors you mentioned go into that "like" or "dislike".

    I would also think that saying you don't like Coldplay when you actually do (they royal you, not you Noble Dust), is more a type of virtue signalling than it is a type of taste (your taste says you like it, period).
  • What is art?
    When most people say it it just means “I don’t like this”khaled

    :up:

    And those that don't fall into "most" are just people that have studied art, established the criteria for "why they like/don't like this" and then attempted to create some authority so their opinion applies to the rest of us.

    So far I am getting the message that bad art is not universal, but a personal judgment of what they already believe is unreasonable.Invisibilis

    That certainly fits my opinion. But there have been some long "Art" threads with a wide variety of opinions, so it may not work for everyone (and it looks like you just got merged into one of them).

    And welcome to the forum :smile:
  • Riddle Thread
    Yes, that is what I pictured as the all seeing eye.

    So the "union" is the completion of the pyramid? So it is not "all seeing" until it rejoins with its base? Why do we call it the "all seeing eye" if it actually has rather limited vision due to its incomplete nature?

    It seems you are creating dogma for a non-existent entity?

    To be fair, I am probably just missing the joke, as usual. Carry on.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.