First, a side question; when I was in school, history was my subject. I liked it, and did well on tests. However, even in high school, I was aware that I was one of only 3 people in any history class that actually liked history. Are you aware that similarly, most of us did not like English class? In the same way that most do not like Math?

In movies the imagery is given to you. In literature, the imagery is constructed by you via imagination. — javra

Well how much practice do we need at this skill (visualizing words in our minds as the ideas they represent)? I would consider that skill to just be part of "literacy". And I don't know many people who lament their lack of ability to visualize imagery. I am not saying this skill should NOT be taught. Just that it is taught. And if we taught it 10% less, I don't see a problem (I get you are arguing we should teach it more - but at the expense of what?).

For example, in Fahrenheit 451 — javra

I addressed this in the previous post. The summary is that my problem with this example is that what you learned could have been taught in a more succinct and direct manner, assuming an interested audience.

Having both read Dune and seen the movie (I enjoyed both), this same disparity applies to the novel Dune to far greater extents. In the novel, erudite observations of politics abound, as do insights into human psychology. One soundbite-friendly observation that comes to mind, paraphrased, is that the typical adult human would rather die than find himself holding beliefs antithetical to those beliefs he’s assimilated into himself as an adult. The movie greatly skims the theoretical aspects of the book in favor of action that is visually depicted—thereby depriving the story of its more pleasant experiences, this while reading the novel. — javra

I like all of this. But if the goal was to learn, "that the typical adult human would rather die than find himself holding beliefs antithetical to those beliefs he’s assimilated into himself as an adult", couldn't we have taught that in less than the 20 hours required to read the book (40 if we assume they are actually taking the time to understand these complicated ideas you are mentioning). Notice that if we knew that EVERYONE (or close to it) would enjoy the story, then it is worth the extra time to engage the students. But if only 20% of the class is going to like any given story, it seems more just a waste of time, not to mention filling their brain with unimportant facts that elbow out all the useful ones. (this paragraph has too harsh a tone - take everything said as my reasoning for teaching 10-20% less formal literature, not eliminating it entirely).

If we equate plot to story, the story remains roughly the same in a novel and a movie. But just as plot-depicting cliff notes cannot convey the aesthetic experiences of living through the story—regardless of whether it’s a movie or a novel—so too will a good movie not do a good novel justice, for the movie at best abridges far too much of the novel’s contents: those of perspectives, of background, of psychology, of worldviews, etc. And again, by comparison, a good movie will not flex the mental muscles of imagination (so to speak) anywhere near as much as will a good novel. — javra

So the main reason I LIKE novels more than movies is that they are longer. If it is a world you enjoy (by world - I mean the fictional environment that the story takes place in) then likely 2 or 3 hours is not enough. However, there are very few movies (even the great ones) that end leaving me wondering about background or character details. And for me personally, I would struggle to separate my enjoyment of one over the other (book vs movie). I would say that if teachers approached movies similar to books, there would be plenty of opportunity to flex mental muscle. Notice a concept like symbolism could be taught just as easily in either format. Why not introduce it in the format students are most comfortable with, and interested in, then they can use their new found skills and knowledge when they are given a more complex and less familiar work, like the novels you have mentioned?

Now, though unfortunately too often derided among rational types, imagination is of pivotal importance in everything from finding satisfactory solutions to problems (of all types and breadths) to the progress of the empirical sciences (from arriving at new paradigms which explain all outliers of data, like the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution, to the formulation of worthwhile hypotheses and adequate tests for these). — javra

I think we would have to have a whole discussion on "what is imagination" for this to go anywhere. I have found it interesting that my "creativity" directly correlates with how much knowledge I have. I am not trying to deride creativity, just point out that if creativity refers to "wholly original" then I wonder if it exists, if it means "a slight or significant change to an already existing idea" then you can see how more knowledge = more creativity; and yet that does not seem to fit the meaning of creativity. I understand "creativity" as more of an emotional expression than something that is logical and concrete (the connotation far outweighs the denotation). I would also point out, that WHATEVER creativity is, it is NOT equally attainable for all. Just like intelligence, or athleticism, we are all born with certain potentials and limitations. Can I teach someone to play soccer? Of course. Can I teach someone to play soccer like Lionel Messi? Of course not.

And, quite arguably, among the best ways of improving this cognitive faculty among all individuals is via the reading of literature. — javra

I don't think you will be able to convince me that people learn more creativity from literature than movies. Maybe you are talking a specific type of creativity? Notice visualizing imagery is a very different type of creativity than creating an interesting story or developing a new theory of physics. I could develop my ability to create stories by watching movies. If I want to develop my creativity in physics, I will have to learn some math (the best mathematician will not necessarily be the most creative physicist {ie Einstein}, but without a fairly solid math base, good luck creating some important new theory.

I am getting closer to caught up!

I'm just pointing out that it's not the same for everyone or in each scenario. It's not the case that one thing or the other catalyzes more imagination for everyone. — Terrapin Station

Hey Terrapin. Just making sure you don't feel ignored in this thread. I think we are in general agreement (perhaps not exact, but much closer than those I am responding to). I just don't have anything to say when people are in agreement with me, haha. Certainly let me know if you feel I have missed anything.

Yes, I wouldn't say we have "zero autonomy" any more than I would say we have "absolute autonomy"; — Janus

Cool, so we are in agreement there.

That process is often to be observed on these very forums; where some people just keep falling into it over and over, and yet seem to be completely oblivious to what they are doing, or perhaps to say it better: what is being done to them. — Janus

Well if there is anything I can do to improve our debate experience, just let me know :grin: But be very specific. I have an emotional IQ of negative 12, so I will struggle to identify the significance in general sentiments.

a) the same piece of art claimed to be painted by a white conservative male or a Hispanic lesbian which has more value? If you want to claim both would have equal opportunity to get their art hung in a gallery you are out of your mind.... — thedeadidea

Well until very recently odds would have been WAY higher for a white male (like 100 to 1). Today I would say it is slightly in favor of the hispanic lesbian (more like 3 to 2 than 100 to 1). Either way, those are examples of the type of subjective assessments of art that I have a problem with.

b) a conversation in contrasting the significance of Starry Night by Van Gough, The Old Guitarist by Pablo Picasso and Tracy Imin's unmade bed.... Go on have a chop don't just go to the catch 22 Renaissance writers, poets and other mainstream cultural icons paint your own artist canon with the same brush.... Have a real go... then after you get done defending the bed half-heartedly contrast the value of Tracy Imin's art to the kind of aesthetic commentary one might draw from Artist's Shit by Piero Manzoni.... — thedeadidea

This is a bit jumbled, but I get the sense you are saying that I need to be as critical of Michael Bay as I am of Shakespeare? If that is what you are saying, then no worries, that is exactly what I am doing. In fact I am arguing that art critics and elites DO NOT apply the same standards to the 2. I am exactly applying the same standard to Shakespeare as I am to Michael Bay.

c) If one is a philistine for treating some art as shit and others as not but all are equal then consider the biography of a man like Auguste Rodin whose classical style in France elicited criticism and scorn in his day but still triumphed.... — thedeadidea

Wait, isn't eventual recognition of his triumph support for my position that we should not just listen to the established authorities?

d) If you don't like Shakespeare that is up to you but his stories were written 400 years ago... You will have to forgive the writer if they did not weather as well as some English majors hyperbole would have you believe.... But given his pre-industrial revolution pre democracy writing one might have to be a little more forgiving... — thedeadidea

My point is that the stories do not hold up, not that they did not have some value in the past. I would even admit that, to some people alive today, Shakespeare may be very beneficial or rewarding. I just don't think he will resonate with a very large audience anymore (I would even go as far as to suggest that part of the reason for Shakespeare's enduring success would be the lack of competition until recently).

e) The reason why you wouldn't see Shakespeare in a lot of schools today is that he is probably one of the best and most humanistic centers of CULTURE the C word that some artsy wishy-washy Lefty Safe Space Occupying Morons don't want anymore... — thedeadidea

Wait, I am complaining that there is way too much Shakespeare (and as you have just joined, I am using Shakespeare as a placeholder for all art that is well respected but rarely actually enjoyed).

I just don't understand why kids need to read the same book.... Surely we could have an electronic database of books and let them pick in 2019.... Insisting on references (reference generators), cut and paste quotations and a digital copy so teachers could cut and paste a reference in doubt into said data base and quickly know whether it is there or not..

Considering its all arbitrary anyway a kid might as well read and write a report on the book of their children rather than read the same book and share opinions nobody cares about or learn to form those opinions. At least they might actually get some joy out of their English class — thedeadidea

This sounds like stuff I would agree with and yet...

It isn't even an opinion the complete lack of standards in aesthetics is one thing, to apply that to education is just disgusting. If one wants to dispute aesthetic predilections of literature more power to you but if one wants to suggest literacy rates or all texts assess the same level of literacy and interpretation you are insane..... — thedeadidea

Well less insane than attempting to use Shakespeare to teach literacy. Also, I am not necessarily advocating for a complete lack of standards. Just pointing out that the current "standards" are almost entirely arbitrary and subjective.

The idea of replacing film with reading is just shit and missing the entire point of education... That is to also develop a toolbox of cognitive ability.... Including but not limited to READING ABILITY — thedeadidea

Huh? So if currently around 90% of learning in English classes takes place through reading, and I think that should be reduced to 70 or 80% with movies (or other options) replacing some of the reading; how have we hindered students' reading ability?

Dang, you responded too quick. I think I have a bit more time today, so I am going to respond to as much as I can (hopefully it does not get too long). If I know I still have material to respond to, I will mention it, but feel free to mention anything else I have missed or need to focus on a bit more.

(e.g., some young preadolescents that enjoy Transformers might not understand why the Matrix is found more aesthetic by many adults). — javra

You make a valid point here, but my opinion would be that it is only valid for about 10% of people who have seen those movies. One need not know Descartes, or even the underlying ideas of his philosophy (or any other philosophical ideas), to enjoy the Matrix. Similarly, some people will have their experience of watching the Matrix enhanced by an understanding of philosophy, but someone like me would just count it as an interesting side note that doesn't add much to the story...If I wanted to study philosophy I would have done so directly. For me, putting philosophy into fiction is a way to make it more fun, interesting, entertaining, etc. There are better, more direct methods of learning, if one is less concerned with being entertained in the process. This is going to be my biggest issue with saying literature is important because we can learn philosophy (or anything else). Literature can teach us about emotions that we would otherwise only rarely experience. But if we go beyond emotions, can't everything that is taught abstractly in literature be taught more directly using another method? In your next post you describe how impactful that funeral portion of Fahrenheit 451 was to you:

In far more elegant expression, the perspective held that we cry selfishly, for our own ego’s loss, and not for the loved ones that died—regardless of how they died: either they ceased experiencing all experiences and, thus, all suffering or, else, we believe that they passed on to a better place than that in which we’re in (and this because, via our love for them, we deem them to have been good people). — javra

I entirely understand the learning you are expressing here. You explained it in just a few simple sentences. You lament your own lack of elegance, I applaud your concision. The "elegance" of Bradbury may have made this topic interesting or palatable to someone who is generally disinterested. But for someone who truly wants to learn, there is a better way (by better, I mean faster, more efficient, more complete, etc).

A related example: I have been in many discussions with libertarians or objectivists or republicans where they ask me if I have read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead". I respond, no, but I have read Rand's essays where she directly lays out her philosophies. What more can I gain from the novels? (I do not mean to imply that Rand had good philosophy or novels - just using the example).

Don’t know that I can be labeled an optimist, but I do find that people generally hold emotive understandings of subjects which, when philosophically addressed, are not yet very well understood consciously. — javra

Hmmm, my over-literal low emotional IQ brain doesn't get this. At first I thought along the lines of the supreme court justice that said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it". But you seem to be saying something more? I can understand something emotionally before I actually understand it? How do I know I understand it in any way, if I can't express that in words (or at least point at an example)? I expect this is more weird to me personally, than an actual problem, but it is tough for me to understand.

For example, we all (emotively) know what justice, good, aesthetics, etc. are, but when we start trying to consciously pinpoint them, we then often times enter into debates. — javra

I feel it is easy (for me, I am learning not for everyone) to pinpoint my ideas on justice, good, aesthetics, etc; I run into problems (debates) when I try to universalize them or ask other people to accept my ideas as their own (this thread :grin: ).

This goes back to my take being that good aesthetics ring true — javra

I think this will blow your mind; I find poetic language (usually) to be anti-aesthetic (to me personally). Few things annoy me more than dressing something up in fancy language when it could have been simply stated in far fewer words (I find a nice concise summary of a very complicated topic to be far more beautiful than nearly all poetry). This suggests to me that while aesthetics can (and do) "ring true" with individuals, it will be a difficult idea to apply to large groups.

that they emotively speak to us of things which we are emotively knowledgeable of, but of which we often cannot make sense of at a conscious level. — javra

I do not wish to deny this or argue that it is wrong, but just say that I do not get it. I would ask for an example, but if you can explain it in writing, then it is not what you are talking about (sounds like the Tao, haha). I certainly lie somewhere on the spectrum of emotional deficiency, so it may just be me. Try to explain if you can, but I can admit this may be my failure to understand (indeed it was, see next paragraph).

Hence, for example, adults that don’t comprehend and enjoy epistemological and ontological subjects of philosophy will nevertheless tend to be more fascinated by the Matrix than by the Transformers—and this because the former has greater depth in its epistemology and ontology. — javra

Ok, well this is an example that does answer my question above. I can even understand it, haha. But it does not sound familiar. I liked the Matrix because it was an action movie with a bit of comedy. It had an interesting sci-fi twist and the special effects were great for the time. It also included some martial arts which has been a hobby of mine (more so in my 20s when the matrix was new-ish). It also had the vital feature of the hero having no major moral flaws (he may have had them, but if so, they were never included in the movie). Notice, "It made me think about whether I can trust my senses" is no where on the list. For me that all just rolls into the "interesting sci-fi twist". If I actually wanted to think about whether I can trust my five senses, I would come here and read a couple threads where that topic is being debated.

Still curious to know how they wouldn't fit the three descriptions I previously offered. — javra

Sorry I keep forgetting this bit.

First off, do we agree that aesthetics are first and foremost an emotive experience (rather than an intellectual desire of consciousness)? — javra

I think I agree, but as is probably showing, I do often struggle to separate the two (I understand the 2 distinct concepts, but where does emotion leave off and intention take over...?? But I think I still have to agree. What is "beauty" if not some type of emotional response (even if some intellect is included)?

Secondly, the emotive experience can’t simply be any attraction toward—e.g., we can be emotively attracted toward food or drink even when not hungry or thirsty (like when having a full stomach), but this attraction doesn’t pertain to our aesthetic tastes (we’re not driven to eat that which is aesthetic to us—and if, by chance, a certain food is for some reason deemed aesthetic by us, eating it will always to us feel as though we are destroying something whose continued presence has value). — javra

Ok, this more tells us what aesthetics is not, but the distinction needs to be made.

Thirdly, and however ambiguously, we form a connection, an emotive bond somewhat akin to that of sympathy, to that which we find aesthetic—such that our sense of what is aesthetic becomes an extension of our very selves; — javra

Perhaps I am overly verbal and underly emotive, but I do not feel that I form the connections ambiguously. I "feel" like I immediately state and quantify how/why I like something. Perhaps you are referring to the split seconds that take place before my brain can justify why "this is good"? Notice that I have overly analyzed my own tastes to the point that I am rarely pleasantly surprised by a piece of art. Based on past experiences, I have a general idea why I will like something, and my brain is pretty quick to fill in those reasons when viewing something new. If this seems like a type of closed mindedness, I disagree (that's like saying it is closed minded to always assume 2+2 =4). I have just verbalized many of my emotions (I think?).

What about the idea that depending on my mood, what is aesthetic (to me) changes? Is that just a whole new can of worms?

In at least this one way, aesthetics are not to us a fun distraction, or a diversion—which are by their nature ephemeral, dispensable, and superfluous to what makes us us. By contrast, the most aesthetic artifact one has ever known—regardless of what it might be—is cherished on a par to how much one cherishes one’s own person; and, on average, one desires for its preservation about as much as one desires one’s own preservation (despite preferring that it is destroyed instead of oneself--were such a hypothetical to be presented). — javra

This bit was a bit extreme for me, but your next lines brought into context for me:

Hence, for example, when this just mentioned aesthetic artifact of great worth is demeaned by the opinions of others, we feel the value of our own person being demeaned (especially when we respect the other)—and when it is valued by others, we more often than not feel exalted. — javra

Now this I understand. I am still working on NOT caring about my opinion being demeaned or exalted, but it is very difficult. That is definitely an example where I experience the emotion long before my brain tells me that was petty to feel that way (although the more I remind myself not be bothered by such things, the faster intention kicks in).

-- If you disagree with these three partial facets of the aesthetic, can you then explain what the aesthetic signifies to you such that it doesn’t fit these descriptions? — javra

I don't think I disagreed too much. No big surprise but my understanding of aesthetics is the literal definition (I am not in any way trying to belittle or suggest you are wrong, in fact I am half making fun of my own simplicity): "concerned with the nature or appreciation of beauty, especially in art" Simplified: How we decide what we think is beautiful, especially in art.

-- If, however, there is no significant disagreement, then why dispel the conclusion that some aesthetic experiences are better than others—not on some mathematically precise linear scale, but relative to the general understanding of the beholder(s) concerned? — javra

Because I don't see how your definition created universality. Even if I agree, why does it suggest that my emotions, etc would lead to the same aesthetic conclusions as yours?

Using some general aesthetic scale, I would conclude that modern humans find Transformers et al more aesthetic than Shakespeare because that is where they voluntarily invest time and money. But I assume you would disagree.

Well I finished one post and FINALLY got around to your description of aesthetics that you have been asking me to do for a while (don't hesitate to put me on track :grin: ). I think I just have your 2 most recent posts to respond to.

I just realized I have not proof-read, but have to go. Be gentle :smile:

"Sure breaking the law is somewhat immoral," then it follows that breaking the law is immoral. — tim wood

I realized I did not directly address this bit. When I accepted that "breaking the law is immoral" I included the idea that, using that logic, EVERYTHING is immoral. If we do not admit that EVERYTHING contains some aspect of immorality, then I am less inclined to admit that "breaking the law is immoral".

I think people generally just pre-reflectively accept the mores that their culture serves up to them. Once they become reflective, which is probably not all that common, then some of their mores, (less likely the really important ones dealing with matters of life and death) may be discarded or transformed. (They might come to believe that masturbation, or pre-marital or homosexual sex, for example are not immoral, where they formerly did believe those things were immoral).

Of course it is true that individuals in most communities are held morally responsible for their actions, which means that it is, morally speaking, deemed to be ultimately up to them; but it does not follow from that that people have any absolute autonomy when it comes to moral beliefs, or even as to whether their actions conform to their avowed beliefs. — Janus

Uff, philosophy is complicated. I actually pretty much agree with all of this. I guess I needed to define the word "decide". I generally lean toward not believing in free will, so I think (emphasis on THINK, happy to be corrected) I understand your point. I agree that granting people absolute autonomy in decision making is wrong, but if we grant zero autonomy then haven't we eliminated the need for philosophical discussion? (among other things) If there is no "decision" to be made, then why ask "how should we behave?"

Neither drugs nor lying are necessarily immoral because neither are necessarily harmful. But they usually are. — luckswallowsall

I thought this thread was intended to be a debate about your second sentence above. Semantic disagreements and an unwillingness to accept the approximate truth of your first sentence has made it mostly about your first sentence.

I would challenge the assertion that drugs are "usually" harmful, but this thread has bigger fish to fry. (and we would likely just be debating the semantics of "usually" vs "sometimes" anyway) My agreement with your first sentence, far outweighs my disagreement with your second :smile:

As to Zhou's "point" that you think so much of: as I read it, he argues that everything is somewhat immoral. Again, that makes breaking the law immoral. — tim wood

I think @DingoJones was getting at something along the lines of -
If you are in any way agreeing with my point, why wasn't the OP phrased:

If all aspects of human behavior contain some elements of immorality, then "doing illegal drugs", which is an aspect of human behavior, contains immorality.

Notice the arguments would all be with the premise (the "if" portion in case my formal philosophy is lacking), and I doubt the whole debate would have been nearly as intense. Also, that argument would have NOTHING to do with drugs, as any other activity could also be immoral.

I’ll likely wait for you to present your views on what is and is not aesthetics, this in general. — javra

I think I am going to go back to your previous post and get to the rest of that, which will hopefully lead to me presenting my views on aesthetics (I have never really thought of "my view on aesthetics" directly). You definitely said some interesting stuff in your most recent post, but I will not be able to get to both today.

My art teacher would have wanted to know how these adjectives can describe a bird that is in space, “space” here being more akin to outer space; — javra

I really misinterpreted the assignment. I was not aware the teacher told you anything. I was thinking how I would describe the piece if someone had just shown it to me, with no introduction whatsoever, other than the title.

I’m still suspecting that the case can be made that if the adjective can apply to a bird in space, thus understood, the adjective will then likewise apply to the statue. — javra

It seems bit weird for me to describe "a bird in space", then be shown a piece of art and asked "does that fit your adjectives?" But wouldn't many of the literal adjectives not apply? Alive, frozen, fleshy, feathered, etc? I think my biggest problem with "appreciating" art is that my brain is very literal. It can understand abstract concepts (I am not sure if I am "worse" at this than others, but that is possible), but will never use an abstraction when something direct and more concise will work.

I disagree with the view I’ve too often heard, specifying that what the artist intended is fully superfluous to the artwork, — javra

I agree with this, but just want everyone to admit that these abstract artworks could EASILY represent something else. If the author says "it means X" then it means X. However, if a teacher asks me to read something, does not tell me what the author intended, then marks it wrong when I give an alternative answer; THEY ARE WRONG, the only thing that can be graded is my justification of my answer. If the creator of "bird in space" names it "bird in space" and says it represents a bird in space, then that can only be true. However, if that same artist, had labeled that same sculpture "the tear of god" (I mean tear as in cry not tearing a piece of paper) and said it represented a tear of god; it seems equally justified, right? And so, I think it is fine and even natural to disagree with the artist, if you were never told the artist's view to begin with (nowadays we have google, so less of an excuse for ignorance, but not all art is on google).

What we intend to say matters—even when our expression is less than sufficient to so convey, or when others interpret things which we never intended. — javra

I agree. But I take it further. Not only does what we intend to say matter, but we are responsible (to some extent anyway) for conveying this information in a way that leads to a consistent interpretation. And for me, a lot of art fails in this regard.

And the judgment of what is poor and what is not is, to me, again relative to one's general understanding. — javra

Would it be possible for someone to both understand Shakespeare, and think his stories were not very good? I can agree that more knowledge can lead to greater appreciation, but I cannot agree that more knowledge will always lead to greater appreciation. Take anything in life you really don't like. If you learned about it for the next decade would you suddenly like it (for me some things could be yes, others would certainly be no)?

I brought this example up because, to me at least, it serves to exemplify how one’s increased general understanding in relation to an artwork can at times transform that which is deemed relatively unaesthetic into something whose aesthetics are appreciated. — javra

Well I guess the "at times" in this statement partially answers my objection above. I think it is safe to say we are definitely in partial agreement on this one :grin:

Of course. I’ve already mentioned a little about my take on the intention/interpretation dynamic to artworks. Staying true to that, I so far find that both the rabid dog and the Decepticons were roughly intended to symbolize the "negative side of our emotions" (Decepticons alluding to deceptions). — javra

While there are aspects of literature that need to be taught, this shows that some aspects could be taught using movies, which could actually increase interest in literature. If you use movies to teach boring crap, like memorizing the literary devices or recognizing symbolism, then the students actually have the tools to read something like Shakespeare. If you just start with Shakespeare, then they hate it before they understand it.

And I am out of time again, I didn't even finish the one post (I think I am close to done).

I am not sure I am answering your aesthetics questions satisfactorily (I certainly have not answered it directly, but think my position can be seen). Feel free to point out where you would like me to state something more directly.

Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one? — S

hahaha. fair enough. I think my compulsion to find common ground is acting up again :grimace:

Well done sir. — DingoJones

Well thank you. I always appreciate confirmation that what makes sense in my head, actually works :smile:

that there is no - zero - expense, that no immorality attaches to the breaking, because they have decided so. — tim wood

Hmmm. To help you understand where they (we? well, at least me anyway) are coming from (I do not expect this to suddenly transform your view, just mentioning), is there ANY moral action you can think of, that I cannot come up with a hypothetical where that "moral" action suddenly becomes "immoral"? Sure breaking the law is somewhat immoral, so is donating to charity. Everything would be on a scale with NOTHING being perfectly moral, right?

To go to the second half of your statement, "because they have decided so"; isn't that how we ALL come up with our morality? Sure we may listen to some other person or deity, but in the end, each person decides what they think is right, right?

To my way of thinking the entire civil rights movement is an exercise in higher morality. As such it - the exercise - comes at a cost. In a business/accounting metaphor, the reward, the revenue, is greater than the expense - it had better be! - and adjudged worth it; but the simple plain facts of the matter do not make the expense disappear - and they had better not! Among those are the moral and other expenses - costs - of breaking the law. — tim wood

So its (civil rights movement) morality outweighs its immorality? That is how I make every moral decision. I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed.

So how do you think it works? If it's not immoral to break the law, Is it immoral to enforce it? Do you explain to the policeman or the judge that you're sorry, but "their" law is simply too immoral not to break it, or, lacking that, you do no wrong by breaking it? How does that play out? — tim wood

Well if we use Rosa Parks as a nice clear example (in case you are not American, she refused to sit in the back of the bus despite the law saying she had to), then the result is that she went to jail. Police and judges simply enforce the laws. They do not create them and certainly do not question the morality of the laws (well they are not supposed to anyway). They just carry them out. The act of civil disobedience is intended to reach a wider audience who may recognize their action of breaking the law as justified, and therefor take efforts to change the laws so future generations are not subject to immoral laws.

Police and judges have the job of enforcing the law, so arresting Rosa Parks would not be immediately immoral. However, the excessive use of attack dogs and fire hoses to enforce the law during the Civil Rights movement could more easily be seen as immoral. To go farther, I would view torturing and killing people during the holocaust, as obviously immoral despite having the law on their side.

Also if it helps, and this is probably sacrilege in philosophy, I view morality as truly only mattering at the extremes. Whether someone smokes some marijuana seems meaningless in any direction (no more immoral than say driving a car, using plastic, or voting for Trump, hehe). A meth addict who stabs people as part of supporting their habit, seems to have a moral shortcoming that is a good deal more significant.

First, it looks like I am running out of time again, and will probably only get to about half of your post. I will definitely get to the rest.

Second, you will notice that after a couple responses I get a bit too into describing why I like/ don't like specific works. I think those bits are more about us understanding where we each are coming from, they may not add much to the argument, so feel free to breeze past them.

Comparing literature to movies has in my experience been a comparison between apples and oranges. — javra

For me more like Red Delicious vs Granny Smith apples (red vs green). Both movies and books are methods of story telling (notice art like painting or most poetry is not really story telling) - but we can agree they are not the same.

And, when considering the best of both, the aesthetics captured by neither medium can be satisfactorily translated into the other. — javra

I think I mostly agree with this, but this gives no reason for teaching literature over movies (I am not even saying that is what you intended - just bringing it back to my point, why not teach a few movies in addition to all the literature?)

Still, literature education is arguably the best way of teaching literacy to students via applied practice; imo, far better than by merely teaching theoretical rules or spelling and grammar, which are dry, tedious, and very boring by comparison. — javra

I agree that spelling/grammar/ etc can be boring. Remember, part of my point is that I think 4 years of REQUIRED english class is wrong. Math, Science, history, and EVERY other subject do not require 4 years (I am in USA). Most of what is studied in English is art, why is this required? Notice the "literacy" you speak of could also be taught through history lessons. I just don't see any obvious goals of literature education (that can't be taught elsewhere).

Asimov, Bradbury, Dumas, the novel Dune — javra

I was all excited and was about to say how I liked all of those except Fahrenheit 451 (it was OK, but I wouldn't read it again for fun). Then I realized that Fahrenheit 451 is the only one that I have read. All the others I just saw movies (for Dune I saw the movie and the mini-series). I expect that I would like the books, but I have no urgent desire to read them. But this may be informative to our discussion - I did not dislike, Fahrenheit 451 because I read it and like Dune because I watched it. One could just give me a 5 minute summary of each, and from that I would KNOW (like 98%+ confident) that I would like Dune more (whether in movie or book format).

Based on our conversation, I am not sure I get this sense from you? Is there a genre of books or movies that you prefer? Drama, Action, Comedy, adventure, heroes, etc? What I mean is that if a story is an action adventure with a bit of comedy and a hero that has no major moral shortcomings - there is almost zero question that I will be entertained. Now there is a huge gap between the best and worst story of this type, but FOR ME PERSONALLY, that type of story is almost guaranteed to at least be decent. I like the occasional story in different genres, but it is very hit or miss. I have no idea if I will like it, before I watch/read it. I am not sure anything in this paragraph is entirely relevant to our discussion - just a side note so we can both understand where the other is coming from.

I nevertheless appreciate having been given to read a wide breadth of literature during high school: historically starting with Beowulf and Ten Summoner’s Tales—neither of which were easy readings but yet very interesting for their historicity — javra

I appreciate this sentiment, and WISH it was remotely true for me, but it just wasn't - I don't think I had terrible English teachers, I just found nothing of value (for me personally) in those stories. I often tell people that I know there was only 1 book I ever liked (that I was forced to read in school), because there was only one book that I would actually read ahead on (the rest I finished the chapter the night before - or minutes before - the quiz). That 1 book was Childhood's End - some Arthur Clarke sci-fi thing.

Beowulf is a nice example of how to make me NOT like an action adventure story. Give the "hero" crap morals (or not necessarily crap, just normal human grey area garbage). The whole story, do I want Beowulf to die? To kill Grendel? To kill his own offspring? Do be faithful to his queen? Do I want the witch to win? I have a need to support a character if I am going to be interested. If I would not support the person in real life, I don't care about their fiction story (notice modern stories like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy lose me for this very reason).

All the same, I guess my own perspective is that I’d rather more fellow citizens be exposed to these historically important works so as to have a common body of knowledge in society pertaining to a common history — javra

This seems interesting, but toward what end? So we have topics for conversation or something more?

Shouldn't we all understand our own actual history first? Notice I am back to the 4 YEARS of required English vs 2 years of required history.

I've come to notice that pretentiousness is certainly not one of them. — javra

Hahaha. Yeah, I am almost militantly plain and uncultured :smile:

I still have plenty more to respond to but I do get long-winded - feel free to point out anything I am writing that is useless information. Once I start writing it just pours out, but then I go back and read it and question if I am staying on topic.

"Well, Nelson Mandela broke the law and it was moral for him to do so, and certain Americans broke slave laws and it was moral for them to do so; so, therefore, it is not immoral for me to break the law by taking illegal drugs." Is that yours in a nutshell? — tim wood

Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. It is no more ALWAYS MORAL than it is ALWAYS IMMORAL - this isn't that weird of an idea is it?

Each instance of drug use needs to be judged based on the consequences of said drug use (this is the one bit where I may have slightly different view from S, I think we are still wholly responsible for our actions since we chose to alter our mental state).

I am not trying to argue Consequentialism over Virtue ethics (well maybe a little), just that blanket moral statements like "it is always immoral to do 'X'" are just emotional sentiments that don't consider the actual meaning of words.

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?
— ZhouBoTong

Im impressed! Few could make such a succinct decision. — ernestm

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?
— ZhouBoTong

I'd say you have it exactly backwards here. — Janus

My formal philosophy training is limited at best. Ernestm you might be making fun of me based on Janus' response? If not, then this is more for Janus.

Can either of you point me in the direction of something that would explain this? Dictionary definitions are largely identical. A quick google search suggested my understanding was correct, but as you philosophy people just throw those words around, I should be sure to understand them.

Mister tim wood, I have the utmost degree of respect towards you. It is an awesome feat to procure such a vast quantity of dissenters, while conserving the basic sense of your meaning. I say, keep it up. — Merkwurdichliebe

As Tim considers it beneath him, and you seem to understand his point...Can you explain to me why Schindler breaking the law to help people is immoral?

So you agree there can be situations where EVERY option open to the individual is immoral? What is the point of morals if they do not inform us as to how we should act?

No body is entitled to specific share (unless it is workers, who from a socialist perspective, deserve it all). — Bitter Crank

nicely done :rofl:

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it. — Bitter Crank

Well, it works for me.

Has anyone read “The Bottom Billion” ? Interesting book. Easy reading economics book where the author looks at the factors which play into a countries prosperity. — I like sushi

I have not, but I just read a summary. It seems accurate, but seems more concerned with the bottom 50% of countries (bottom based on economics, security, etc). Doesn't Marxist theory assume economies have reached a certain level (maybe we need @Bitter Crank to answer that one)?

Based on the summary it almost seems to be addressing how countries get out of poverty - separate from their system of economics. The 4 traps seem to apply to any type of government or economic system. Also, when the traps are removed, improvements occur no matter which type of government/economy. Am I getting that right?

I think I have heard a similar argument aimed at Russia - It doesn't matter what type of government or economy they have, the end result will be massive corruption.

My little jibe was more or less about the benefits of listening to who most strongly disagrees with you — I like sushi

I was in a strange mood and responded a bit defensively (I would apologize but I think you were the one who told me to stop doing that :grimace: ). Arguing is what we do here.

I was actually joking when I said that line about "hanging in better circles". I get bored talking to people that just agree with me. Coming to this forum has been exciting because I have never had people that agree with me, also offer new ideas that I haven't entirely considered. So I was responding to Bitter Crank in that light, and was caught off guard by a libertarian argument (not that it was out of place).

I need to remember though, that just as people who agree with me here are smarter than many in the real world, you people who disagree, also may have something to add that I have not heard before. I need to go back through and re-read but I will just ask one question in relation to what I was responding to B. Crank about:

So, we were saying managers and other highly skilled people should not necessarily get the penthouse, etc. You seem to disagree (hehe). What I want to ask is, How much do the managers/owners deserve?

How much more should they be paid compared to the lowest paid full-time employee?

10%? 100%? 1000%? 10,000%?

Even I would agree that 10% doesn't work. But I would say 100% is about right. However, today, there are many examples of 10,000% (that is 100 times more). If we count the stock market as a different type of earnings related to the business then the top dogs get even more (Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc earn one million percent more - simple math 50,000 to 5 billion). Should we just accept that as the cost of doing business? Maybe you think you can convince me that they DESERVE that much more? If you are thinking of trying to convince me, just know that I will take things to extremes and ask things like "why don't they deserve even more?"

It is always UNETHICAL to break the law. Personal beliefs may render the ethics immoral to the individual. — ernestm

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?

In that case it may be unethical, but it is someone else's ethics, right?

Similarly, saying Goddammit is unethical. So?

I can admit that by common understanding (I was going to say "by definition" but it really doesn't in this case), breaking laws is in some way unethical; that doesn't mean I admit it is always immoral, right? My morality disagrees with the laws, so regardless of ethics, it is not immoral?


edited for typo

Would you be happier had I wrote, "There is always an immorality that attends breaking any law, that belongs because it is a law that is being broken." — tim wood

Nope. Changes nothing. What you need to do is show that given a binary decision, both choices ARE immoral. That doesn't make any sense to me. This is an extreme example, but if I am told that I must kill my mother or the whole world dies (and I have reason to believe it), then the correct (good / right) moral decision is that I kill my mom. Like most people, I am not sure I am emotionally equipped to take the moral high ground, but the "good" moral choice is obvious.

Surely "not killing my mom" carries more moral weight with most people than J-walking? And yet in the above example it is wrong and killing is right.

I will use the Schindler example again. Following the law meant killing innocent people. Not following meant helping. In this case, following the law is CLEARLY the immoral choice.

I see no reason at all why the Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year, would have better art than America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year. We should have 300 Sistine Chapels. — Ilya B Shambat

I think we do. You might be looking in the wrong place. What about Godfather 1 & 2 (not so much for part 3)? The Sting? Seinfeld? Tupac? B.B. King? Oingo Boingo? The Usual Suspects? Mark Twain? The Avengers? Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia? The Shawshank Redemption? Star Wars? Dodgeball? And of course, everyone's favorite, Transformers :grin:

Our artistic efforts are going into movies, music, and tv because that is the type of art people like these days..

Well, the thing is people you specialise are specialised. Given that having a company full of managers would be pretty dumb the weight of responsibility falls on a few individuals. Such individuals require special abilities not everyone possesses OR is willing to learn. In other areas a person commits themselves to one specific area of interest in order to reap the benefits ... but they may fail. The issue is about planning, organisation, dedication and risk assessment. People good at this, who’ve put themselves in such positions, are more capable. You could argue that the workers can be their own manager, but I don’t see how that is going to work at all in high-end businesses because it is a matter of quick decision making not a matter of adding several layers of voting by people who spend more time dedicated to their role in the business - which would still have its own special perspective to some degree.

It isn’t ‘fair’ that not everyone is capable of managing a company. So what? Neither is it ‘fair’ for someone to work 70+ hours a week and suffer the burden of responsibility when those below lose their jobs, complain and strike. A certain degree of resolve is needed to manage, and a good manager will be one respected by the workers and who respects the workers. — I like sushi

Of course you be in favour of no innovation and a return to the stone age? In which case your position makes some sense, but you’d likely end up as a serf or slave due to the brutal nature of nature. My advice is to lap up the privilege you’ve inherited now because we’re living in a time of plenty so don’t be complacent with the knowledge and understanding that abounds.

Jealousy is not the best principle to live by. Go make something of yourself :) then you can give your excess money to your employees and live in squalor. Do that and see what happens I beg you. If you’re successful you may actually change attitudes and convictions - I’d certainly wish you all the best and cheerlead our efforts :) — I like sushi

Speaking of echo chamber. I have had this conversation before. I will come back to it and think about whether it can go anywhere that either of us has not been before (I am sure you have argued against plenty of communist-types and I have argued against plenty of libertarians - I am not saying you are libertarian, I certainly am not communist, but you probably get the idea)

Here’s an interesting thing about suffering in terms of pain, loss and humility: there can be no process of life without experiencing all three. There is no interconnectedness without loss, no growth or development without noticing and adjusting to change, and no awareness of anything in the universe without humbly recognising that the universe is bigger and more valuable than my existence. — Possibility

Well, I was really struggling to conceive of life without suffering, so this all sounds good to me.

So the only way to eliminate experiences of pain, loss and humility is to cease living — Possibility

I think I am on board when it comes to eliminating pain. But to compromise with Leo's position a little, I am comfortable with suggesting significant reductions in suffering is possible. I think your next paragraph indicates you might be ok with that too? (although determining EXACTLY how much we can reduce suffering is probably very debatable)

I question this need to ‘control’ everything. Despite every effort and every elaborate illusion we construct, I can potentially control my thoughts, my words and my actions, and you can potentially control yours. That’s it, at best. — Possibility

I agree with this, I might even add that we can potentially learn to control MOST of our thoughts, feelings, actions, but complete control is unlikely even for the zen master. I also question the need for control; but it is more questioning why my own mind can understand it cannot control everything, but still desire to control everything. Stupid brain :smile:

That doesn’t mean we do, however, but it’s a start to recognise where our individual capacity for control starts and finishes. — Possibility

I guess I didn't need to add my last few lines, you were already there :smile:

I may assume, for instance, that I ‘control’ the axe I am using to chop wood, but that sense of control is dependent upon my body’s awareness of certain interconnective properties of the molecules that form the axe and its handle and their collective capacity to split wood, the combination of situational properties (position of the wood, angle of impact, force, arc of swing, grip, etc) that will achieve the desired effect on the wood, as well as my body’s capacity to lift and swing the axe in the required manner every time. Even if I don’t have to consciously think about all of this detail to make it happen, my body still has to take all of this into account to appear to ‘control’ the axe. If I have misjudged or incorrectly assumed any one of these relationships (beyond a certain margin for error), I may ‘lose this control of the axe, as what I intend or desire to happen with the axe fails to occur as intended or desired. But there was never any ‘control’ as such - there are a number of interconnected relationships at work as a result of awareness. — Possibility

I feel like I understand this part, but also not. Based on your final paragraph (I will add a short response) I think I am understanding you, but I also feel there may be some specific aspect that you are trying to get across that I may not be picking up. In reading my responses, I think you will know how much I am understanding. Definitely let me know if I am missing anything as the parts I am getting seem good, haha.

I think perhaps this idea of ‘control’ is where we have a misguided view of our relationship with the world. When we don’t feel like we have control, when what we intend or desire fails to occur as desired or intended, we experience suffering. When what we believe should happen doesn’t, when we incorrectly assume the properties of a relationship with our environment, we experience suffering. — Possibility

For me, this paragraph describes our emotional suffering well (it includes how we could reduce suffering and why our desires cause suffering). But we have not addressed direct physical suffering as much. Would you count someone born into extreme poverty or hereditary slavery as suffering in the exact same way? Can we apply the same model to ease their suffering?

I submit you have a research problem. I point you toward Plato's Crito and Phaedrus. Kant's Groundworks for a Metapysics of Morals. Thoreau, pretty much anything. MLK Letter from Birmingham Jail. Gandhi. But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it. — tim wood

I don't suppose you can point me to anything written by any of these guys that explicitly states "breaking the law is always immoral"?

I am not going read those works in their entirety (again for MLK and Gandhi) just because you say it is there. Surely you know of one sentence that supports your argument?

Doesn't Thoreau actually describe it as "a duty" to disobey unjust laws? I don't know Kant well enough, but wouldn't every "duty" be a positive moral behavior?

But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it. — tim wood

You may have been responding to something more specific, but I am not worried about finding morality in these works. It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. One can find a philosopher to support almost any idea, but that is how EXTREME I find "it is always immoral to break the law"; I am not sure a single one of these philosophers will provide any DIRECT support (my philosophy knowledge is weak at best, so you could definitely get me with a gotcha! here; but your claim is so bizarre to me that I am willing to risk it).

Loud and clear! But I've missed their - your - argument. No need to repeat it, but be good enough to point me back towards it. — tim wood

Hmmm, it seems so foreign to me that I would barely know where to begin. I enjoy discussing the minutia of morality, but in real life I view morality as being most significant when it is difficult. If it is just the way I would behave anyway, then why bother calling it morality. Therefor the need to break a law to live by a higher "moral law" would actually be definitionally positive moral behavior (by my standard).

Take Schindler (from Schindler's List) as an easy example. Schindler's action were more impressively moral BECAUSE they were illegal. Notice too that his behavior was not just a little illegal (like drugs), it was death penalty stuff. That only increased the positive morality of his decision.

If you can explain to me why Schindler's actions were immoral, then maybe I will understand where you are coming from.

Oh and to simplify my understanding of morality - Good moral behavior SHOULD be done. Bad moral behavior SHOULD NOT be done. Notice that makes the lesser of two evils (assuming only 2 options) a GOOD moral decision.

That's because you haven't understood the tension in this thread — tim wood

I think I have. The OP asked, "Is it immoral to take illegal drugs" which most people understood to be a discussion of the morality of taking drugs that happen to be illegal (the main point would be SHOULD they be illegal).

Then you dropped a philosophical whopper on everybody:

Are all illegal acts immoral? Yes. — tim wood

You are aware that most of us in this thread strongly disagree with that? (well I do anyway, I think others agree if I am reading their posts correctly) Also, that is a huge philosophical topic of its own. You might as well have said, "of course it is immoral, God said so" and then got angry when we all stopped and said "wait, how do you know there is a God?"

Note that you could be enslaved and not suffer because of it, if you don't feel enslaved or if you don't want to feel free. — leo

If wage labor is slavery I agree. If 1800s American South slavery is what we are talking, one's mindset may reduce the suffering, but eliminate seems wrong.

Ultimately, "dealing with suffering" refers to a technique that helps reduce or eliminate a suffering. — leo

Notice that "reduce" seems far more realistic than "eliminate". I am not convinced that humans could even understand a universe without suffering (it is such an inherent part of life, can I even start to guess what life without suffering would look like? Notice that eliminating death would be an obvious requirement).

An updated list of "immoral" action throughout history (Mr. Wood's argument suggest all of these are just "lesser of two evils but still evil" - personally I would count some of these as some of the most distinctly positive moral actions in human history and the rest are acceptable responses to atrocities):

The Civil Rights Movement:

Sit-ins
Freedom Rides
Rosa Parks
Any black or white person that married the other ethnicity

American Slavery Era:

Underground Railroad (EVERYONE involved)
Runaway slaves
A slave that protected another slave from a beating

Pre- Magna Carta:

EVERYONE who in any way disagreed with the Monarch.

Ancient Rome:

Most (at least "many") of Jesus' actions including certain times he cured the sick (even if Jesus is god, he still broke the law).

India and its caste system:

To the "untouchables", any action that would improve their status in society.

Nazis and Stalin:

Anyone who resisted. Schindler.

Oh! I almost forgot Africa:

Take your pick, Apartheid, Imperialism, Slave Trade, etc


Surely there are many more similar examples (I am actually somewhat disappointed in myself for this rather meager list).

I obviously do not understand the idea at all that ALL ILLEGAL ACTIONS ARE IMMORAL. Seems ridiculous.

That doesn't mean that the manager deserves to be living in a penthouse. Managing the flow of work is just another job at which some people are better than others. A much higher level of thinking will be expected of brain researchers than will be expected of enterprise managers. Brain research is a job. Just because it is highly specialized and technically demanding, doesn't mean the brain researchers should live in palaces overlooking the ocean. — Bitter Crank

I really like this part. But when I say stuff like that, I get the sense that everyone else in the room thinks I am crazy. I am fairly confident that you are an American who has lived through more than a couple decades...Have you found more or less acceptance for these ideas in your life? I get the sense that from Reagan until a couple years ago, American mindsets were generally headed in the opposite direction - something along the lines of, "of course the manager and the brain researcher deserve more money! what do you mean why?!?! Isn't it obvious?!?!"

Does that sound familiar to you? Maybe I just need to hang out in better circles :chin:

And I don't know how you have a perfect mini-example ready to support every idea you have, but great stuff.

No, I find the topic immensely interesting; but it’s a very complicated subject. And I’m honestly trying to economize my personal time. It might be a while till my next reply. — javra

Great to hear. And no worries on timing. I tend to go a few days between replies anyway. We can pick up a month later if we have to :smile: And this reply is getting so long, you may need a few weeks to get through it :grimace:

This post only gets up to the point where you start hashing out aesthetics. I am running out of time, and having read that portion, it will not be a quick response (even if not long, I am going to have to think). If you are absent for a little while then I should have that response posted below this one...but it may take a few days before I get time.

Doubtless this is so due in large part to Shakespeare’s works having greatly influenced our cultural heritage in the west—whereas Transformers has had little of such impact on western society. But this reason is not of itself an issue of directly experienced aesthetics—rather, it’s more one of western culture’s history of aesthetics. — javra

If I am interpreting this correctly, I think we might be much more in line than I realized. Sorry if I am combative on this subject, I have had too many bad arguments. I think I have been reading your arguments and making sense of them in relation to MY PERCEPTIONS of your position. If I read them without assumptions, I will understand you better, my bad.

I think this sounds like you might be OK with replacing 50% (+/-) of Shakespeare that is taught in school (below college level) with modern (or just different) stories? How about replacing 30% of literature stories with film stories? I am not exactly sure of the goal of literature education (is there one? really?), but I think these changes would still meet any goal other than, "know the classics". I am also not totally sold on the significance of Shakespeare's influence of western society, but would happily review any strong evidence (he influenced society because we read his stories? How did Shakespeare influence us in ways that The Avengers do not? Or maybe you are suggesting the influence is similar to something like The Avengers, but it has been around for centuries and for most of those centuries very little art was created {relative to the last 30 years} so Shakespeare's works were read by a significant percent of literature readers?)

My bet is that this is in large part due to bad pedagogy. — javra

I mostly agree in relation to math, but I am not sure in relation to literature. It may be a problem with my personality. I will use your example and hopefully make some progress (we may just conclude that I have some social inadequacies that cause my disagreements):

To me, a good example: our high school teacher brought out images of Brancusi’s Bird in Space. We were less than impressed with this supposedly seminal work—basically seeing it as horse dung (at least I did). He put the sculpture aside and asked us to express as many adjectives as we could that described a bird in space. We started listing: graceful, austere, elegant, serene, etc. — javra

My adjectives to describe the image (I just googled it) would have been at first literal, golden, curved, narrow, metallic, etc. Then they would have been in relation to the title (that I would have found barely appropriate - it makes sense when I hear it, but I never would have guessed that is what the art was about), so I would say things like, terrestrial, earth-bound, fish-like (sorry, my vocabulary is struggling to come up with decent adjectives, but hopefully those give you the idea). Then, once other students started to introduce emotional adjectives, I would also use them; if someone described the art as happy, I might describe it as sad. And as soon as the first person explained why they describe it as "happy" it will be easy for me to explain the "sad" side (remembering a "happy" time can make you happy, or it can make you sad as you no longer get to experience those happy times). I get this is playing devil's advocate a bit, but I never felt I got a reasonable explanation.

Now, we have all the adjectives on the board. And we notice that many are actually antonyms for each other.

When the chalkboard was full with adjectives, he then asked us which if any of these adjectives didn’t describe the sculpture. They all did. At this point we all had a deeper understanding of the sculpture’s abstract significance and, with it, a newfound appreciation for it. — javra

My deeper understanding in that moment was that once "art" becomes "abstract" it can mean literally anything - sometimes it is up to the artist, sometimes it is up to the viewer. I can see how you were led to the conclusion you came to, but can you see that with just a tiny change in perspective, my view is also a reasonable conclusion? (I actually do not expect you to view my conclusion as reasonable, but hopefully that phrasing will help show me where I am wrong (or missing something).

In re-reading your paragraph, I am not sure what I said is actually against what you said. However, what I said is very unlikely to lead to "a newfound appreciation" of art - I think that is the big difference?

Some, including myself, in the process came to discover what makes it aesthetic. — javra

I don't really understand this part; I think my understanding of "aesthetic" is far more simple. I think you address our failure to understand that word in the same way later on, so I will wait before spending too much time on that.

OK; I’ll try to better illustrate my view: Transformers are about morals, courage, some light sci-fi, and, more recently, a lot of eye-candy. Compare its cultural impact to movies such as Bladerunner or, more recently, the Matrix. The later, for example, has most of what the Transformer movies have, but its sci-fi concepts have more depth, and it touches upon—what in philosophical slang are—epistemological and ontological topics, some of which are nearly as old as philosophy itself. Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, Matrix movies will tend to hold greater value than Transformer movies. Yes, aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but there are a lot of beholders out there, and our degree of general understanding tends to correspond to the statistical bell-curve. What affects the median the most is that which will have the greatest impact on society at large—and, hence, what will be commonly deemed better. — javra

Ok, I don't see much in there I would disagree with. But there is one thing that I would say is missing. Transformers was not created with deep philosophical ideas in mind, but are you saying that there is no way someone could "create" them as they watch? Brancusi's Bird in Space is not even a bird, and yet...

Sometimes the artist creates meaning, but other times the artist is providing inspiration for us to create the meaning. If the rabid dog in To Kill a Mockingbird somehow symbolizes racism, can't Decepticons also symbolize racism, sexism, or the negative side of our emotions?

And just so we are clear, I would be PERFECTLY happy (ecstatic even) with Blade Runner or The Matrix replacing works by Shakespeare, Steinbeck, or Vonnegut (to be fair to Vonnegut, I think 30% of students might be ok with Slaughterhourse Five).

Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, — javra

Just to see where we are both coming from, what percent of adults do you think can comprehend and enjoy both (epistemological and ontological topics)? I would think only about 15% of adults (I am in America, might be part of the problem, hehe) can define these 2 words. That being said I would say that probably 50% do spend time thinking about topics that would be considered epistemological or ontological. So being generous we can include them. But it seems reasonable that half of adults have spent little to no time analyzing the difference between truth and opinion (the popularity of 24 hour "news" channels suggest those people are not concerned with justified belief vs opinion). I get the sense that you have a more optimistic view of people in this regard?

It is useful to understand the average differences when considering ideas about forcing equity upon people based on the “average” when no one is “average”. — I like sushi

Ok. Can you give me an example of a type of equity that is being forced on people? Ideally one that we would NOT force if we all KNEW that women act more emotionally?

I am sure there are some nice obvious examples, but I got nothing?

Maybe the relevant difference is not in the suffering, not the type of suffering, but in how one parses and deals with suffering. — Terrapin Station

Well the point I was going to bring up was, "how much does suffering contribute to joy?" The yin and yang so to speak. Is joy greater if we have experienced the lows of suffering?

I think Terrapin's point is related, but more useful. We need to learn to deal with suffering more than we need to eliminate suffering.

- Feeling hungry or thirsty but not knowing where to find food or water to stop that feeling
- Wanting to feel loved but feeling rejected, while not knowing how to be loved
- Wanting to feel considered but feeling ignored, while not knowing how to be considered
- Wanting to have biological children but not being able to have biological children
- Wanting some person to be alive while that person is dead
- Wanting to feel free but feeling enslaved, while not knowing how to free oneself
- Wanting to stop experiencing physical pain, while not knowing how to make that pain stop
- Wanting to reach some goal while believing that this goal can't be reached
- Wanting to avoid something while believing it can't be avoided — leo

I view the bolded ones as those deserving a plan of elimination (assuming they are actually enslaved not just "feeling"). With the rest just being stuff we have to learn to deal with (I am not saying that is easy).

Yeah, that's pretty funny. You asked him whether all sugar should be banned because his bad argument could lead to that conclusion, and then his response is to try to turn that on you, as though it was an implication of your argument instead of his. — S

Glad I didn't imagine all of that :smile:

so too is a human’s awareness of aesthetics better than that of a chimp’s. — javra


And yet any human that says Transformers is better than Hamlet is wrong.
— ZhouBoTong

And how on earth did you arrive at this stupendous conclusion??? Since it’s too grievous a spin to not correct—lest we inadvertently encourage elitism: — javra

So in reviewing your words, I am not exactly sure of your position in relation to mine. If you are NOT entirely bored with this topic, maybe you will want to answer the following question?

Why do we teach a lot of Shakespeare and zero Transformers?

If you are thinking about profound vs trite, it is a safe bet that most high school students find NOTHING profound in ANYTHING they are forced to read for school. I am not saying they would find Transformers profound, just that is an unfair measure as it RARELY occurs.

But just as one’s degree of general understanding tends to determine which truths are deemed trite and which are deemed more profound, so too with aesthetics. — javra

Whether we are talking art or philosophy, how often do you come across something profound? I get that I have emotional inadequacies, but the answer for me is NOT OFTEN. If only 1% (being generous) of art or philosophy is "profound", then are we just wasting time the rest of the time? I am suggesting there are other benefits (possibly even other areas of more "prime" importance) of art other than some profound experience.

Of course. I make up my bullshit, you make up your bullshit. That's OK. The important thing is not to believe your own bullshit. That's where people go wrong. They believe their own bullshit. — Bitter Crank

haha, alright. So I got that going for me :smile:

Before long, we may even start to like the smell of it...

Learn to like it enough, and there's no limit to how far we can go!

Fake it till you make it? More like, shart 'till you're smart. — VagabondSpectre

That was very nicely done :rofl:

Ask NKBJ because I didn’t say that. Mistakes happen :) — I like sushi

eeesh, seems obvious enough when I look at it now. My bad.

I would put forward the data regarding personality differences (which are averaged and varied) regarding Neuroticism. Women, in general, have higher trait neuroticism. It is important to note it is called “neuroticism” to describe the stronger inclination toward certain behaviors - and this is a universal trait that relates to “sensitivity to arousal,” and what is vaguely referred to as “emotional stability”. — I like sushi

So they should not be allowed to vote? First, I AM JOKING. Nothing you said even begins to suggest this. But I am interested in where your line of reasoning leads? I would have to do some research, but everything you said seems reasonable enough. But what do we do with that information? How does it lead to different treatment of men and women?

When I was a young boy in the 50s, I noticed that women had much different (and often more interesting) conversations than men did. — Bitter Crank

You were a far more observant young boy than I. I spent my holidays avoiding adult conversations (hmmm, I think I still do that).

So, 1980 - 2019, 40 years of being harangued to open up and share, god damn it, they have. — Bitter Crank

Haha, indeed. I didn't say we did it willingly :smile:

People are sometimes perfectly honest and accurate about what they say they feel, and sometimes they are confused, and/or misrepresent themselves, deliberately or not. — Bitter Crank

I certainly find a lot of people seem to be accidentally misrepresenting themselves (in real life, I don't know anyone online well enough to know if misrepresentation is occurring). Hopefully, an awareness that it happens helps me not to do it, but that is probably wishful thinking.

You know, when you read 19th century letters and non-fictional narratives, men seem to be much more expressive than they were or were thought to be in the 1950s. They express feelings, they weep openly (sometimes, anyway). Injured Civil War soldiers were stoical, for sure, but they also seemed to be more "in touch" with the affective side of life. (I'm generalizing, of course. Some of them were also unexpressive dolts who lacked all subtlety. Some were swine.) — Bitter Crank

I don't think men ever were ever the emotionless logic machines they can be portrayed as (as soon as I phrase it that way, it sounds extra silly). This reminded me of reading male responses to female calls for the right to vote (from 1800s to early 1900s); perhaps this view of maleness was grown as an embodiment of everything females supposedly were not? And the more females questioned why they were denied equal access, the more it had to be justified by "male" differences, so men worked harder to embody these traits? I am probably just making up bullshit.

Well you will be happy to know that the nerds/jocks dichotomy has largely vanished from schools. The new divide is good looking and charming vs lower level of appearance and socially awkward. Notice this new divide is quite in line with adults, which suggests the old jock vs nerd things was really just a different version of the same thing. The remake of "21 Jump Street" captured this new version of popularity fairly well.

Now not everyone who is a “nerd” is a good person, and not everyone who is a “jock” is a bad one. — Ilya B Shambat

In today's world, "nerds" can be less, equally, or more popular than "jocks". What this has revealed is that "nerds" are just as bad of people as "jocks". They also enjoy acting superior and creating exclusivity. "The Big Bang Theory" (tv show) highlights this perfectly. The first time the nerds realize they can outwit the jock, they use that power to make the jock feel stupid and inferior.

And at least when "jocks" display lesser moral behavior, we can blame an inferior intellect. What excuse do the "nerds" have?

The final good news is that more and more, people are realizing these "divides" are simply social fabrications, and creating "in-crowds" based on stereotypes is not best practice.