Sorry to be the ass in these hypotheticals that just tries to solve them using loopholes, but...

Why is money the only medium of exchange for the "sale"? As soon as we don't use money, then it is easy for everyone to sell at a lower value because we all place different values on different items or actions. So I could buy it for a penny and then sell it for a high five. The next person could ALSO sell it for a high-five, but say they do not value high-fives as much as I do.

The other loopholes would be related "fulfill your every desire". Notice most genie games have rules like "no wishing for more wishes". In this case, I could just wish that hell does not exist, or something along those lines.

Like most hypothetical situations, a lack of information leaves options. First off, I think The Mad Fool's explanation is more clever (and in line with the point of the scenario), but here is a way that the prisoner could be surprised on any day, including Friday:

On Thursday night the judge walks in and says that you (the prisoner) have been pardoned by the governor who will be here in the morning to sign the release papers. Then in the morning, PSYCHE, it's a hangin'.

I do not think that was what was intended by this scenario, but no reason it doesn't work based on the parameters (notice we could come up with a bunch of other reasons where new information could lead to the surprise).

but wouldn't suggesting it mixing it up with the topic on feminism. — RBS

wait, I think she brought it up because YOU suggested women were overly emotional. I am not sure you meant it, but when NKJB questioned the claim, you seemed to confirm that you did mean it. Pointing out the mail suicide rate seems to suggest that males struggle to control their emotions as much (or more) than females. Seems to follow logically based on the discussion?

Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic. — I like sushi

How old are you Mr. Sushi? I seem to be finding that many people here are 60+. Does that fit for you? (I am terrible at reading people both here and in real life. I am not suggesting your posts sound old or anything - not there would be anything wrong with sounding old - my point is, I have no clue, but I think it will make sense why I ask if you continue)

I only say that because I hear the sentiment you expressed above a lot, but it doesn't ring true when I observe young people today. Guys are CONSTANTLY encouraged to share their feelings. CONSTANTLY told it is healthy and they will not be judged. Most guys still choose not to, because they find that touchy-feely crap boring. We certainly have the option to "be in touch". Where do you feel the pressure to "be stoic" is coming from? What percent of Americans can even define stoic?

1. What would a machine with an IQ of a million make of a human? — Devans99

Hopefully think of us as their dumb little friends. Does their 1,000,000 IQ include the ability to learn concepts of morality? That is our best hope.

2. Would it regard us in the way we regard bacteria? — Devans99

The way we regard bacteria today? Or the way regarded it in the past? My only point here is that human morality has evolved to the point that some people consider it wrong to harm animals (even insects, but nobody cares about bacteria yet - but we may someday)

3. Could a machine be built so that it has respect for all forms of intelligence? (whether computer or biological) — Devans99

I would think so, but if it has the ability to learn, it could "lose" the respect. Maybe some form of morality could encourage it to keep the respect?

4. Or would we always be in danger of a HAL 9000 type incident? — Devans99

The only thing to protect us from Hal9000 is Hal8999 or Hal9001. Whenever "the singularity" is created, there should be several copies. We pour a bunch of morality concepts into them and hope the "good" ai protects us from the "bad".

5. What should we do? AI could be our savour, yet it may also destroy us? — Devans99

Build it. Worth the risk (I don't have kids or plan to, so that may make it easier :smile:). Just make copies to slightly reduce the risk (A team of AI would have the same ability to wipe us out as just 1, so it works as a risk reduction).

Similarly there is no "direct transmission" of what the artwork embodies of those traces to the viewer, because he or she views works through a subjective lens. The point is, though, that what is actually embodied by the work is something real, that will be more or less apprehended by the viewer depnding on various factors, including of course education and subtlety of understanding, etc.. — Janus

When I referred to direct transmission I actually meant NOT art. If we really want to learn something, NOT art is almost always the best way. If we are bored while learning, then adding in some art might help. And of course (to me) the main purpose of art is to entertain (notice that is the part that really puts a huge gap between us). Art may hone ideas we already have, but it will never (very rarely to be safe) get us to agree with something we previously thought wrong. When people read "Uncle Tom's Cabin before the Civil War {in the U.S.}, how many pro-slavery people changed their mind? Notice people that already do not own slaves, are the ones who "learn" some important truth in the book - granted some are inspired to take action, but they already mostly agreed, so what did they "learn"?.

I am not even sure I am on topic anymore :grin:

And I think you are right in that we have gone about as far as we can go on most of this. Thanks for the scrum.

And the harm of illegal drugs — tim wood

yes yes "illegal." I noticed your focus on that earlier and figured we were on a philosophy site so we were above such considerations (isn't this debate, in a practical sense, about whether or not the drugs SHOULD be illegal?)

Used? Human beings have emotions; they don't use them. — tim wood

This implies a COMPLETE lack of control over emotions, and that is exactly the problem I am referring to. Either you use your emotions, or they use you. And yes "control" is a much better word than use, but close enough for the analogy.

Seem to me you do not know what a category error is. Sugar is dangerous? Maybe sugar should be banned? Every thing is dangerous. Shall we ban everything? Or the reverse, everything isdangerous, so everything is ok? These are all implicated by your form of argument. — tim wood

That is exactly what your argument looks like to me. That was the point.

And your focus on "illegal" seems puzzling. While I am not trying to equate the 2, wasn't much of the Civil Rights Movement "illegal" and "harmful" to society? Should it not have occurred? Or would you just say IN THAT CASE the pros out-weigh the cons? With drugs being illegal, can't we EASILY say the CONS out-weigh the pros?

Right. And as I commented on another thread, the dominant art of our time is on Netflix and Spotify. — old

Great stuff Old (you said a lot that I liked, but this quote really captures it). I was just re-reading this thread and I don't think I ever responded to you. I do not think we were 100% in agreement, but I liked the vast majority of what you said. I think other posters gave you some good responses (both supporting and countering), so I am not trying to re-open the discussion, I just wanted to say thanks for contributing and apologize for not replying (I have never had a thread be busy and it threw me off - I also know that as the OP I don't have to respond to everything, I just feel bad if I don't :grimace: )

Alright NKBJ, time to address my claim that there have been no specific arguments as to why Hamlet, etc is better than Transformers, etc.

There's a LOT actually. Depth of thought, values, artistic ability, complexity, etc. — NKBJ

I wrote a whole bunch but then decided I am just wasting your time. This quote is exactly what I am referring to. You and the rest who disagree with me made many statements like this, but never felt the need to back them up. I challenged them constantly, but no one wants to go tit-for-tat on Shakespeare vs Transformers. Are there any specific examples that would show how Shakespeare expressed these concepts in such a way that any examples from Transformers would pale in comparison? You all are so certain, this should be easy - You don't have to use Shakespeare (i prefer it because I know it better than most "high art"). Any examples of "high art" expressing these concepts in a superior fashion will give me something to work with.

And to be fair, the quote above IS an argument, so I may have over-stated at first. But it is not a specific argument, and does not have any support (It is a thesis sentence - lets try to prove it :grin: )

if I had the requisite experience I could come to see what they see. — Janus

There are MANY subjects where I can admit that. Art happens to be one where I do not think that idea applies. HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT DID, academic literature is a subject of which I have more experience than 99% of humanity. Maybe still not enough? But again, that suggests a different type of "art".

I maintain that there is simply more to be seen in some things than in others, and this is a function of what awareness, thought, association, emotion, liveliness, insight, and so on has been put in by the creator. — Janus

Don't forget the awareness, thought, association...so on that is put in by the VIEWER (this statement could be used to prove either side of the argument). Art is not art until it is created, but by definition, it is also not art until it is viewed. I guess we are just disagreeing on what is required in order to count as a "viewer".

How can you find something inadequate or disagree with it prior to studying it? Of course it you disagreed with the whole idea of some discipline, say for a couple of examples, cosmology or theology, then of course it is not that you should not study; you would not study it. — Janus

huh? So everyone that gets a Master's Degree just blindly jumped into the subject? We learn a little bit, then form opinions that inform us as to what else we want to learn.

Yes, I read it and I thought it was, most charitably, superficial, and, least charitably, vacuous. — Janus

nu, uh. it was good :razz:

At this point, I’d simply like for you to answer my initial two — javra

Sorry, I did intend to get to it eventually, just needed more than 20 minutes.

Premise: We humans value sapience; we, for example, want ourselves to be sapient, rather than non-sapient. As another example that is applicable to the philosophy forum: we almost by definition value those historical philosophers we deem to have been of greater wisdom, and do not value those whom we deem to have been utterly devoid of wisdom (given that philosophy is a love of wisdom). — javra

I take this to say, "We appreciate wisdom. It is better to be wise than not. We tend to respect the opinions of those we consider to be wise, more than those we don't."

First, hopefully that is accurate? If not let me know. And I hope it is not too annoying, but I do like to confirm that I am understanding correctly so I will simplify and summarize (which can sometimes cause a loss of important information).

If my interpretation is correct then I agree, but would add that there will not be universal agreement on what is "wise" (around 33% of Americans apparently think that Donald Trump is very wise - which makes me question the definition of wise - notice IF he is wise, it could ONLY be in business {still very debatable} and yet many consider him wise enough to be their leader).

If this premise stands—and if wisdom is not concluded to be an irrational or fallacious concept in respect to what is real—then I offer that this conclusion then rationally follows: We, thereby, likewise value those artworks which to us expresses great sapience over those artworks that to us are either devoid of sapience or express minimal amounts of it. This regardless of whether it’s Shakespeare, the Transformers, or the Simpsons. To find aesthetic value in a blank canvas as a finished work of art, or in a musical piece that is devoid of sound, one will need to experience it as endowed with worthwhile wisdom; otherwise, one will not find aesthetic value to such pieces of art. — javra

OK, so FOR ME, I would need to adjust the premise for this to follow. If I use my simplified version (I am sure you will let me know what is wrong) then I would change it this way:

Original: "We appreciate wisdom. It is better to be wise than not. We tend to respect the opinions of those we consider to be wise, more than those we don't."

Updated: "We appreciate wisdom MORE THAN ALL OTHER CONCEPTS. It is ALWAYS better to be wise than not (I can almost accept that one). We ALWAYS respect the opinions of the wise over the un-wise. And finally: We all agree on what is "wise."

For me the first line is the big problem. Sure we appreciate wisdom, but surely convenience is something that is more appreciated? We appreciate wisdom, but how much will we inconvenience ourselves to achieve it? I am referring to most people, most of the time. I think there are a few impressive people who are willing to struggle to achieve wisdom, but most wisdom is achieved through interest. Because someone happens to really like a subject they get really into it.

We, thereby, likewise value those artworks which to us expresses great sapience — javra

This is the part that confused me a bit. Does the art express sapience, or does it inspire a person to achieve sapience? I can buy the inspire bit (to an extent), but surely non-art could express sapience more directly? It might be boring, but that was my point about interest.

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. This suggests aesthetics is more a field of study (like quantum physics) than some ability that humans naturally have? And that is sort of my point. We have created a massive formal academic field of art, that contributes very little to actual art.

Well, you have said more that probably deserves a response, but I have already written quite a bit, and you mentioned that you have had about enough of this topic :smile:

Definitely let me know of any important points you made that I did not address.

Really? Are you for real? Around here we call it the opioid crisis. Where are you from?

From a .gov, "National Drug Overdose Deaths—Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017. More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids—a 2-fold increase in a decade. The figure above is a bar and line graph showing the total number of U.S. overdose deaths involving all drugs from 1999 to 2017." But gosh, that's just the ODs.

So, yes, I assert that taking illegal drug harms your community. Any argument with that? — tim wood

Does this even begin to address the points people have been making in this thread? I could similarly pull statistics to show that processed sugar has and does kill far more Americans than opioids. But I would NEVER pull those statistics as evidence that ALL sugar should be banned at all times.

You seem to be arguing that if we can identify anything as POTENTIALLY harmful, it should be eliminated. And yet you ignore that most human activity has some harmful component if you look close enough.

I guess I don't see your point.

Are you arguing that "emotions" are somehow comparable with taking illegal drugs? — tim wood

I thought I actually provided evidence of their similarities. Oh well.

"Taking illegal drugs is like having emotions because..." — tim wood

both can lead to potential harms if they are used irresponsibly

That was easy. Next question?

If aesthetics has the purpose of drawing us toward greater sapience — javra

Ok. I did not pick up on this idea at all the first time (the drawing toward part). As this seems a complicated sentiment, I want to be sure I am understanding.

If aesthetics is: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.

And sapience is: the quality of being wise, or wisdom
(these were first 2 definitions I found that seemed applicable, I am open to alternatives)

I am not sure I even understand how that could be the case. Let me take the most simple and obvious "appreciation of beauty". How does a guy admiring a pretty girl lead to wisdom? Feel free to play with the words a little, but I don't see the connection? How does watching a sunset lead to wisdom? You may have meant something else entirely?

And I am going to have to apologize again, Javra, for not getting to your entire post (or 3, I don't think I entirely addressed your original, and you have already given a couple replys to my mini reply). The response for Janus took way too long and I am out of time. I will get to the whole thing soon so I can give you a nice long annoying response like I give everyone else :smile:

Assuming your answer is yes, does your taking illegal drugs do your community any harm? Answer: of course it does. — tim wood

excuse me? how so?

And what about my emotions analogy?

I can re-word:

Question: Are you a member of a community? Assuming the answer is yes, do your emotions do your community any harm? Answer: of course they do. Question: the people you hurt, is it all right for you to hurt them? Is it all right with them? Did you get their permission?

Seems harsh, but the situation is harsh. The fact, for fact it is, that some of the harm is not so visible and sometimes seems unimportant as is often used as an excuse, but is in fact no excuse whatsoever, and is, IN FACT, a hallmark of the manipulative behavior of those who lack emotional control. "But it's my life, my choice! Leave me alone its none of your business," cries the emotional addict! If only. But it is everybody's business will they or nil they. As such, mindfulness training makes a lot of sense. But I have to wonder if the emotions in question are just too powerful.

Well, firstly the point was to show that something can be more than something else even if we cannot measure it. — Janus

But you only showed that "I" value it more. It makes no objective (I mean tending toward objectivity - not PURELY subjective) statement unless we can measure it outside our own head

But there is also the point that if something is loved more than something else, then for those who love it the more beloved thing is better. — Janus

I agree. But don't see how that contradicts anything I am saying.

Of course you will now probably retort that for example more people love some silly pop song than they do Bach's music. — Janus

More people do love some silly pop song than Bach, but I wouldn't say that to prove my point, only to suggest yours might be flawed. Again, the consensus doesn't make anyone right on matters of personal taste. What is better, some fancy restaurant with a Michelin star or McDonald's? The answer depends on who you ask.

But the question is, do they really love it, or are they merely sentimentally attached to, or infatuated, with it? — Janus

Hahaha. Awesome stuff. I think we are unlikely to find agreement here. I actually distrust EVERYONE who says they love Shakespeare. As soon as I press them for details, they have not read it since high school and can't actually remember any details. Hilariously, you distrust the common man's art taste while I distrust the elitist's. So agree to disagree on that point (unless you can think of some bridging aspect that I am missing).

So, the further point here is that taste for more original, inventive, subtle and profound things may be developed by education, and consciousness can be transformed in the process, such that we become able to see things we previously were not able to see. — Janus

First, everyone is required to learn a good amount of "high art" in high school (I think it is "secondary school" in Europe). But you must be referring to FAR MORE education than that because it clearly was not enough to convince the common man. I have had to teach a lot of Shakespeare along with other literature and poetry. If I have not had enough "education" I am not sure you are being realistic. Maybe you think "high art" is made by the top .1% of intellectuals for the top .1% of intellectuals? If so I will leave you to it, and just ask that you all stop forcing it on us common folk in school.

Why would you expect aesthetic judgement to be deductively certain or empirically demonstrable? — Janus

I actually wouldn't. You are the one that said "high art" is better than "low art". That statement seems to require some amount of empirical demonstrability or deductive reasoning?

What you really seem to be arguing is "I can't see it, so it must be wrong". — Janus

So I keep being told. And yet nobody want to compare Shakespeare knowledge. Maybe I can see it, I saw it, and it is meh.

I guess you didn't read the article by the guy with a master's in Shakespearian studies? Why was he wrong?

I can't give you a knockdown argument to support my contentions, as I already acknowledged; all I can do is to say what I know from experience, presuming that there is enough commonality to aesthetic experience and that it is something that may be cultivated that you may be open enough to come to see that I am talking about something which is a real possibility for your, or anyone's experience. — Janus

Again with the, "if you just understood it better". How do you know I don't know it? Would a person with autism or Asperger's relate to Shakespeare the same as the rest of us? We are all very different. It is ridiculous to think we will all like and emotionally respond to the same things in the same ways.

For me the human condition obviously consists in both what is debased and what is elevating, in what is trivial and what is profound, in what is original and interesting and what is banal. Of course the apparently trivial kinds of lives of many people can be treated in literature, for example with profundity and compassion or they may be treated with fatuous admiration, as if life is and should be nothing more than titillation, amusement, or alternatively drudgery and boredom alleviated only by novelty and endless acquisition and consumption. — Janus

I am happy to find examples of "profundity and compassion" in "low art" if you want to provide examples from "high art"?

I don't think you will disagree with me that very many people's lives are characterized by thoughtlessness and acceptation of the swill that is served up by popular culture. — Janus

Yes, just as many thoughtlessly accept Shakespeare's stories as brilliant without engaging in any sort of a critical analysis.

I think it is ethically better to think for yourself while acknowledging that there are, not merely different understandings, but different levels of understanding at work in every human pursuit. — Janus

Well I think this suggests you have a FAR (infinitely) higher opinion of art than I do. I can see levels of understanding in math or science or history as MATTERING. There are levels of art knowledge, but they only matter to professional critics and art professors (notice the artists themselves don't need to know that stuff - and often {usually?} don't - well they certainly didn't in the past). I do not need to know how to paint to enjoy a painting. And someone who knows how to paint does not necessarily appreciate any specific painting any more than I do. Also, knowing how to fully analyze literature does not mean that one will automatically like Shakespeare.

Call me an elitist: I probably deserve it! — Janus

Just know that I do not mean the word as negatively as it is typically used (which you seem to get :smile:). I just mean the definition of elitism - the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite (in some way better than other humans).

What you are asking for is like asking for the explanation of a joke or a poem. — Janus

The inspiration for this thread were the garbage art assignments that students are given in English class (which is required for 4 years - no other subject requires 4 years- in America/California). You do realize that students do have to explain what poems and literature means, right? And they are graded based on "correct" answers. You may want to reign in your fellow elites who do think there is a right answer.

Some things cannot be directly said, but must be shown by allusion, and allusion is one thing that most crappy works of art do not embody. — Janus

And yep, high school students DO have to recognize and explain (in writing, so directly said) allusions. Allusions are artistic summaries (sort of). We can say everything directly, can't we? It might take 20 pages to thoroughly explain a single image, but it can be done? What aspects of existence cannot be captured in words? You may have interested me in an entirely new topic :grin:

And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass. — ZhouBoTong
More of a sad-ass. — Janus

Hmmmm? So there is nothing admirable about a student that finds dark matter/dark energy explanations to be inadequate, so they delve into the subject? Are you opposed to the action of learning about what you disagree with or maybe you were just poo-pooing college degrees in general? I am more OK with the latter.

I don't suppose you read the article being referenced?

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

Can you guarantee to control your emotions and their effect on you and others? One might say that people don't choose to be emotional where as they choose to do drugs. However, anyone that has ever practiced controlling their own emotions would say that we do in fact choose our emotions (to a limited extent), and everyone who has a laissez faire attitude about emotions is just contributing to the problem.

I can guarantee that any drug use I partake in will be FAR less harmful than many actions that result from unrestrained emotion.

Just like emotions, one should not assume that all drugs affect all people the same. Even hard psychedelic drugs - some people will be aware they are on drugs, no matter how intense the effect - if one is aware they are on drugs, they will limit their actions. If I just stay in my house the whole time, what is the worst that can happen?

plus a few seconds of the 5th (that scene in the Simpson's where the whole town gets up to leave the symphony after 5 seconds of Da Da da Daaaa nails it). — ZhouBoTong
Haha, that's brilliant. I didn't know of that scene. — S

The Simpsons are full of great little scenes like that. I can't even tell you what episode that was from because the whole scene was only about 10-20 seconds.

And the fact is that most, if not all, evangelistic voters don't even want you to vote (i.e. choose for yourself), but only to demonstrate that you think like them by voting for their pick. That's not a prescription, just the way I approach evangelistic voters. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ugh, I hear that. But my experience suggests many others operate similarly. My parents are republican and from the day I was born have never cast a single non-republican vote. I think this is common. I have friends who are democrats that take politics and sociology quite seriously, but they never actually THINK about anything (they have zero desire to actually engage with me in debate, and I am mostly on their side - it could be my jerk-ish personality, but they seem happy being my friend otherwise :grin: ). They just vote democrat then ONLY read material that is obviously pro-democrat, then get mad at everyone who votes differently.

Then you have the key systemic change: improving yourself. — Merkwurdichliebe

Can't argue with that. But now I will have that Michael Jackson song stuck in my head :groan:

Hi Olly - since I saw that Terrapin also responded, I just wanted to mention that many people here (seemingly most) seem to be in agreement with what you have said in your post. It just happens that Terrapin and I disagree with you :grin:

And you will notice that I have a tendency to respond to EVERY word you say. I have been reprimanded, but it feels disrespectful for me to not respond to everything. Feel free to respond to or ignore as much of this as you please.

Most people would agree that Shakespeare was an infinitely better storyteller and writer than Michael Bay. — Olly

Probably true. And yet "most people" also have NOT read Shakespeare since high school and cannot give a decent summary of any of his stories other than Romeo and Juliet.

There's a fair consensus that shakespeare was an exceptional writer/artist, only a tiny percentage of people would say Michael Bay was as good, better, or even an artist at all. — Olly

That "consensus" is exactly the point of this thread. Since everyone thinks Shakespeare is better it should be a piece of cake to show why.

Why are we defining "art" and "artist" in a way that suggests the creator of any work of fiction is NOT an "artist"? The dictionary definition makes no such suggestion.

Again, what people say does not matter as much as what they do. If EVERY art critic says Michael Bay is NOT art, then when the average person is asked which art is better, what will they answer? EXPONENTIALLY more people are willing to pay for a ticket to a new transformers movie than buy one of Shakespeare's books. The VAST majority of Shakespeare's sales are as required reading for school, right?

Shakespeare explored the human condition with almost unmatched eloquence — Olly

Shakespeare's commentary on the "human condition" has been mentioned. Care to give examples? I still have a few replies to read, but so far, every time I ask for examples of Shakespeare's brilliant exploration of the human condition, I tend to get crickets. My point is that any "commentary on the human condition" found in Shakespeare, can be found elsewhere. Shakespeare's analysis has resonated with a lot of people, but JUST AS MANY have found nothing much there. Neither side is wrong.

Bay makes movies with explosions and hot models because Bay likes explosions and hot models, not because he has any interest in people or telling a compelling story. — Olly

You are missing the level of his genius. Those movies are full of deep symbolic meaning. I am sort of bullshitting here; once a person is experienced at finding the meaning/symbolism/etc in stories or poems, they can CREATE them even if they are not there. Does it matter what the artist intended? How often does ANYONE interpret a painting exactly as the artist intended? There are many artists that when asked what their art means, have answered that it is up to the viewer.

Also, your quick dismissal of explosions and hot models suggests you might not have much interest in people either (most people like those things?) . Why do people spend billions going to these movies? Surely there are tons of free YouTube videos full of explosions and hot models?

Most "popular" or "low" art fades away after a few decades or less. — Olly

Ok, so if I say Die Hard instead of transformers, then it is Ok? I guess we can wait 100 years and then see which movies people still watch?

Their work has a timelessness to it, that resonates with people across all time, — Olly

Hmmm, and yet I still do not know anyone who regularly enjoys the art of any of those old guys. I am assuming that everyone here who argues in favor of "high art" does partake of "high art" more frequently than "low art" - but I don't actually know you all.

Why is "low art" consistently more popular if what you said above was true?

It was not created with the talent or vision — Olly

Any movie in the top 10 of the box office sales surely had at least some talent and vision behind it, right? Even if we give a lot of the credit to producers and marketers, surely it is not that easy to create a movie that grosses a billion dollars?

the idea of the "western canon", a collection of artworks from our cultures that exists as a kind of lasting legacy of what we are at our best. — Olly

I would just say it is a legacy of what a few "important" people deemed to be "important" (how would you even begin to prove this statement wrong?). "High art" is only "high" by authority. Has anyone EVER even attempted to show how one piece of art resonates with more people? What would that experiment look like? Does making someone cry count as more or less than making someone laugh?

If the offered premise stands, how would the given conclusion be erroneous? — javra

Sorry, I was just re-reading the other thread and realized that I did not respond to this portion (but thanks for the little reminder :grin: )

Based on the definition of art I would think that the ability to reach MORE people MIGHT make transformers better?

Doesn't your logic here suggest that Calculus is better than basic arithmetic? But that doesn't seem right, does it?

I think these questions provide my argument? If not, let me know and I will try to address your premises/conclusions in a more formal structure.

I have to read a lot more of your post, and still have to respond Janus as well.

Most people would agree that Shakespeare was an infinitely better storyteller and writer than Michael Bay. — Olly

I have to run for the day, but just know that I will take time in the future to respectfully disagree :grin:

Do we love some things more than others? Of course! How will you measure the difference? If you reduce life to what is measurable, what will be left? — Janus

I can say "I love x more than y". That says nothing about "x being better than y".

So what if you show there are no such unequivocal arguments to support ethical or aesthetic judgements? — Janus

Then we have shown that it is just nonsense made up by art "elites".

All you have shown is that such judgements are not analytic or empirical judgements, but that is trivially obvious to anyone who has given it any thought. — Janus

So it just feels right? Why is it obvious? And surely I have thought about this more than most (not you of course, but most)? I may be a terrible thinker, but again care to point me at the obvious?

It doesn't follow that artworks and ethical judgements do not embody more or less understanding of the human condition, or that such understanding is not what is near universally valued above all else by those who value human intelligence and the compassion and sensitivity that come with it over mere entertainment or self-serving pleasure seeking. — Janus

Hmmm, I didn't see where the definition of art prioritized some emotions over others (compassion vs entertainment {what if I am entertained by compassion} - neither are exactly emotions but both are composed of them - I think). What is the "human condition"? Is our desire to be entertained part of it?

People come to see these ethical and aesthetic truths because they develop and transform their ability to see them, not because they could be convinced by some deductive argument or undeniable empirical observation or theory. — Janus

Can you give ONE example of an aesthetic truth that is taught in "art" you consider valuable? And then know that I am going to find that same truth in the most "low brow" piece of art I can come up with.

This is off-topic but I think it is relevant. — Janus

Haha, nicely done (getting back on the thread topic by saying "this is off topic").

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the morality of illegal drug use. — Noah Te Stroete

my fault (I think I started it anyway) :grimace: I will start responding to the off-topic stuff in the other thread.

I was called out for off topic, so I just responded to your post in this thread.

Yea, you know, if you're one to believe that an elephant's painting is as aesthetically valuable as is a human's, to each their own. — javra

What we pointed out in the art thread, was that an educated art critic is the one most likely to ascribe some great artistic significance to an elephant's rambling scribbles (as long as you tell them it was by some brilliant young up and coming artist).

Next I would point to Jackson Pollack and other examples, why can't an elephant make something as aesthetically pleasing?

Some white paint on a white canvas sold for $15 million. Somebody liked it.

beauty and emotional power are not "measurable" because they are not quantities. — Janus

some works embody them more powerfully, more subtly, more intelligently, more authentically and so on, than others. — Janus

Somewhere we are struggling with language. If they cannot be measured, how can they be "more"? Prove it? and I don't mean empirically, I mean how would you even begin?

To say this is not sophistry, but to express something I know from experience. — Janus

Indeed. But my experience tells me that Shakespeare was not that clever (the greeks made much more clever use of prophecy - the prophecies in macbeth are pointless - well I only remember 2 out of 3) and that I only like Beethoven's 9th plus a few seconds of the 5th (that scene in the Simpson's where the whole town gets up to leave the symphony after 5 seconds of Da Da da Daaaa nails it). Mozart will make an elevator ride more pleasant but am I going to be emotionally moved? rarely. Not that others won't be, but that is the point.

what makes you think it's about these issues to begin with? It's a big marketing campaign about who's popular. There were barely any policies debates in the last election. — Benkei

You are right about the popularity contest. And I might even agree that very few people care to delve into the issues. But that does NOT mean that people don't THINK they care about the issues. They also will often strongly identify with certain causes or issues. I think of the issues more hazily as a type of emotional identification, for example - socialism has become an emotional identification that means "help the poor" to the left and "destroy the middle class" to the right.

Notice the 4 issues I mentioned (repeated below) are so vague and general that they would not even count as an "issue" in a debate. And yet, they highlight obvious differences. Despite the campaigns avoiding detailed discussion of the issues, surely EVERYONE (who cares) knows that democrats support the issues below while Trump has a strong view in the opposite direction, right? What am I missing? Are you saying democrats DO NOT want a multicultural society? Are you saying Trump has not said things that strongly imply {or directly state} he is against the democrats vision of a multicultural society?

Democrats want a multicultural society. Democrats support more open borders. Democrats see benefits in socialism (general meaning, not arguing whether what they call socialism is actually socialism). Democrats generally do not see the U.S. as really great (it has done great things, but also terrible things). — ZhouBoTong

I feel sympathy towards those who have the genuine urge to take action (by voting) in order to make things better. It is unfortunate that we're left with the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. In the end, I think voting is futile and can effect no real systemic change. — Merkwurdichliebe

I understand this sentiment completely. I am largely in the same boat. I just barely make the minimal effort of voting (and that is more because I have had too many arguments dismissed with "well you don't even vote" - terrible ad hom, but I got sick of dealing with it). That is why even though I spend a good deal of time studying history, politics, etc, voting is quick and easy.

Disagree, of course! But saying we had no arguments is a bit much! :brow: — NKBJ

Well, being wrong is sort of my M.O. But I will not admit it easily. Time for me to go read 15 pages of that thread all over again :smile: .

I did not say there were no arguments made as to why some art is better than other; but were there specific arguments as to why a specific work of Shakespeare was specifically better than one of the Transformers movies?

Can you elaborate? I'm sorry brain is not working properly. — Anaxagoras

Evidence is suggesting that it was my brain that was not working. The OP was worried about being monitored by government or civilian vigilantes. I have not had to deal with that experience, but was thinking that black people in America may have dealt with that.

However, I have been jumping to conclusions here on both ethnicity and nationalities, so if it does not pertain to anything in your life, that is entirely my fault. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

No, I'm not black. I'm very conventional: elderly white cis male, retired techie, from England. — Pattern-chaser

hahhaha. well, not even close on that one, got to work on that reading comprehension. at least I let the OP know of at last one poster they can ignore (me) :grimace:

But they are experienceable, and some people are better equipped to experience and respond to them than others, — Janus

I will take more time to respond to your post more respectfully (no time now), but this statement was the exact thrust of that thread. So some people are better at "experiencing" art? Doesn't that seem a bit haughty? If not, what exactly does that mean?

More like you interpreted the way it went predictably. — Janus

a nice play on words :smile:

Really, zhou? And here I thought we'd been getting along.... :chin: — NKBJ

Me too. I can't disagree and get along? I have even found myself agreeing with almost everything you say in every OTHER thread but that one. And I think on that thread there may have even a few points where some middle ground was found, but I felt like no specific arguments were made as to why Hamlet is better (for example, one common argument is that it is better because it is definitive and transformers is derivative - I am simplifying - but as soon as I begin to ask why and how we are describing things this way, there is no attempted defense - is everything that is old definitive and new derivative?)

I haven't read that discussion, but it seems it went as I would've predicted. — S

haha, yeah I had a few supporters so I can go on thinking I am not crazy for a bit longer :smile:

A white male (sorry Pete, straight) war veteran appeals to Trump's base more I'd think. Additionally no #metoo references is a bonus. — Benkei

Why would a trump supporter vote democrat? Democrats want a multicultural society. Democrats support more open borders. Democrats see benefits in socialism (general meaning, not arguing whether what they call socialism is actually socialism). Democrats generally do not see the U.S. as really great (it has done great things, but also terrible things).

Forget all 4 of those things, any 1 and trump supporters are out.

No, I'm baffled. To undermine your base in the way they did, is about the most shady rat-bastard thing a political party could do. I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote. — Merkwurdichliebe

We're on a philosophy site. I assume everyone here is aware that the vast majority (very near all) of politicians are just narcissistic people, who, like the rest of us, just view their jobs as some thing they have to do before they can enjoy the weekend (or in congress' case, a few weeks off). Of course, they view themselves and their work as superior to the rest of us and our endeavors, but that doesn't mean they are willing to actually inconvenience themselves for the sake of improving society.

So, my vote is based on what the party/candidate SAYS they represent. Yes, I am aware they are mostly full of sh*t, but what are my choices? At least casting my vote in favor of what they SUPPOSEDLY stand for, shows what I want. And, by the time November rolled around in 2016 the one thing I wanted more than anything (politically) was NOT trump.

That's too bad. Race and gender are two of the worst criterion I can think of for supporting a candidate. Not that this hasn't been the case the whole time. I'm just saying. — Merkwurdichliebe

And I agree. you are talking ideally. I am working with the garbage the world gives me. I am not supporting them BECAUSE they are a women and black. However, many people will support them for those reasons alone, and some that are supporting them for other reasons might feel more inspired to actually go vote if the candidate appeals to them in other ways. It would be problematic not to consider that truth.

I want to now ask anyone interested in this topic to share the ethical implications you feel having this done to a someone undermines as a private citizen who has Human Rights. This excludes a cause for a terrorist investigation or justified concern by DHS -- whom are trained to properly handle bypassing a citizen's individual rights of privacy (for the most part, or at the very least are supposed to be) -- in order to determine a possible national threat. — THX1138

Interesting read. I hope you find comfort in life.

In noticing this one bit, I couldn't help but see parallels with the treatment of black Americans. Whether it is police, or a concerned citizen ("concerned citizen" sounds way too nice for these people), people feel the need to monitor their behavior.

I'm more referring to "vigilante" private citizens. A formed group composed of those whom are technologically proficient and whom may have the resources necessary to hack someone. Their motivation may be to "karmically" punish someone for interests found to be reprehensible and suspect. Invading such an individual's privacy systematically (phone camera, audio, geo-location, online activities, accounts, etc.) being their method of obtaining intimate details.They may then weaponize the information they've gleaned against such an individual. — THX1138

While she was not violent, but the quote above reminds me of that white lady that called the police on a young (like 5-8 years old) black girl selling bottled waters.

I agree with you that this type of citizen monitoring is immoral (unless EVERYONE is monitored - and that is very unlikely until our A.I. overlords emerge). But I do NOT feel that I have really had to suffer this type of treatment. So, all I can do is offer condolences.

There are a few philosophers here who happen to be black. I am not sure if they are American.

@Pattern-chaser @Anaxagoras If I am correct in assuming you are black (I apologize if I am wrong), do you see any parallels? Any advice for someone who feels their actions are constantly monitored whether by government entities or private jerks?

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me? — Merkwurdichliebe

Is this a trick? You make a valid point, but if my choice is democrats or Trump? Doesn't seem too difficult. But don't worry, I won't give the democrats any money (if that is what you mean by support).

Until they sabotage the next candidate. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well if they end up running anyone who is not a black woman, then Trump will win anyway (unless we get lucky and he gets bored with this whole thing and does not run). The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. I would like to think that hating trump is enough for unification, but it didn't work last time.

More intelligent appreciation of the arts is cultivated; the result of education, just as with philosophy itself. So thete are criteria that underpin aesthetic judgements despite the fact that not everyone will accept them, or understnd them.

If there are no analogous criteria for moral judgment, np criteria beyond personal preference then whether or not taking illegal drugs is moral will be merely a matter of opinion. — Janus

Definition of art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

That definition gives no way of ranking art. In fact, it makes no mention that it would even be possible to rank them (are beauty and emotional power measurable?). One could be invented, but that is above and beyond "art". We argued this one for 15 pages (art and the elitism of opinion) and no one on your side had a much better answer than "of course Hamlet is better than Transformers" - pure sophistry (i am not even saying Hamlet is worse, but surely if obviously true, there should be some evidence/reasoning).

Now if we define morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

While it still seems very subjective to me, words like right, wrong, good, bad, while ambiguous, do imply a ranking could be created.