Everything is subjective. — Brett

Clearly not on my view. I just listed objective things above.

And among things that are objectively the case is that merit only occurs subjectively.

I’m confused by that.

Maybe we should have done definitions already. Basically, "subjective" = mental phenomena, "objective" = anything " outside" of mental phenomena.

That’s what meant by everything is subjective. I was agreeing.

That’s what meant by everything is subjective. I was agreeing. — Brett

If you were to think that everything is subjective why would you be talking about objective merit, for example?

Because I had reconsidered my views on this subject.

Ah, okay. I don't at all agree that everything is subjective, though. Not everything in the world is mental phenomena.

It is if we’re talking about it, though.

It is if we’re talking about it, though. — Brett

Aspects of talking about something are objective; other aspects are subjective.

Sounds we make, text we write, gestures we make are objective. Meaning, understanding are subjective.

Yes. A mark on a piece of paper. Abstract artists might have been trying to achieve this.

See if this analogy helps (I don't expect it to convince, but hopefully at least understand where we are coming from):

Tom is an Ice Cream aficionado. Tom knows more about ice cream than anyone alive. He eats ice cream twice per day. He has read everything ever written about ice cream. He knows every major company, every flavor. He knows how it is made. He knows how to serve it. And far more I can not even think of because I don't know ice cream that well.

Therefor when Tom says that "Rocky Road is the best flavor of ice cream" he is correct right? Even for someone who is allergic to nuts? What if I like fruit flavors more than chocolate?

It is not a matter of COULD be wrong. There is no wrong. — ZhouBoTong

I understand the problem: you think philosophy is just a matter of opinion.

Then riddle me this: if every opinion is equally valid and true for that person why do you bother arguing with me? My opinion is, after all, just as valid as yours (according to your view) and I (by your definition) can neither be right nor wrong. Or, I'm always right, and so are you, because we're all right all the time as long as we think we're right. So why try to convince me of anything?

By the way, after completing a few high school literary analyses, it will feel easy to find depth and complexity in any story (whether the author actually intended it to be read that way is a different story). — ZhouBoTong

I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about.

So what we can learn from these authors is that many people have read their works and written about the experience? WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days? — ZhouBoTong

You'll just have to read it for yourself. It's an impossible task for me to list all of it here. Or, at least, it would require so much time and effort that I'm just not inclined to invest on your behalf when you're too lazy to do the work yourself.

However, I DO consider all opinions on what is better sky or water to be equal. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, but which is better for drinking? Or for flying?

I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but here I go:
Michael Bay makes good art for entertainment purposes.
Shakespeare makes great art for purposes of displaying and analyzing philosophical concepts as they pertain to human nature.

And just because you can wean those things from Shakespeare doesn't mean they aren't there, because other people have. If great art is defined by whether people can find such depth in someone's work, it doesn't matter if it's their opinion or not, it's that they do find it at all.

Good and evil are not inherent to any type of being. Notice it is not people vs robots. There are good and bad people and good and bad robots. There are good and bad Americans, and good and bad people from other countries. Sometimes good people do bad things, and some people are just jerks. Sounds like Shakespeare — ZhouBoTong

Except there's a lot more to it, and a whole litany of other things in Shakespeare.

Huh? How is "I don't like it" haughty? I take it one step further and say "prove to me that it is better than any other art." I do write in a very matter-of-fact tone and I have been told it comes across as condescending - if so I am sorry, that is never my intention. But I don't think anything I said implies any type of superiority - my entire argument is that it is a given that Shakespeare (etc) is superior and I am challenging that. — ZhouBoTong

It's haughty to go from "my personal opinion is that I don't like Shakepeare" to "there is no value or no greater value in Shakespeare than my personal favorite ice cream."

What you like and what contains value are two different things.

Taking your ice cream analogy: yes, people can all have varying degrees of personal affection for any ice cream in the world, but it's also true that salad has more nutritional value no matter what your preference is.

I see things a bit differently. — T Clark

First off, Sorry I never responded. I started the thread then did not have enough time to keep up. I had read your post and meant to respond, but did not realize I had forgot until you jokingly mentioned me in another thread (thanks for the reminder :grin: )

I've found that, even if I don't particularly like a type of music, jazz for example, listening to a knowledgeable jazz DJ is really eye opening and satisfying. — T Clark

I was on-board until this point. I do appreciate a knowledgeable person guiding me through any art form, but it seems essential that I have some basic interest level. I feel that I am better off if I research and select the dj (or other art advisor). For example: If I cared to follow a movie critic, my first step would be to look at how they rated the last 100 movies they reviewed. If their highest rated film was Les Miserables and the lowest rated was Iron Man, then I know that I can ignore that critic (not that they are wrong, but their opinion does nothing for me). Similarly, for a disc jockey I would KNOW the type of music they would play based on the radio station. I am not sure I would enjoy any dj talking about Jazz, but I understand a little of where you are coming from (I think): I have never been interested in Astronomy, but those shows on the science and or discovery channels are just too good, so they create an interest. I have tried the Ken Burns Jazz documentaries and I can only get through them if I am also doing something else while watching. I would also point out that a knowledgeable dj is not enough. They also need to be engaging, they need a good sense of humor, some type of charisma, and other factors that grab and keep our attention.

One of the local papers had a wonderful restaurant critic. — T Clark

I would imagine there were many local restaurant critics in the area, but you found one to be particularly satisfying. Do you think everyone would agree that he was the best critic? What if someone appreciates the blogger who spends 20 minutes explaining why their Big Mac today was the best ever? Do they have lesser or inferior tastes? Or can we just say different?

He had an educated taste that he loved to share with other people. — T Clark

Well I can appreciate that...the best teachers are almost always very interested in their subject matter. However, is it a given that anyone that prefers McDonalds does not have an educated taste?

but the impetus behind the transmission of the canon, if you will, is to share things that have moved millions of people for thousands of years. To provide a common set of experiences and values. — T Clark

If that was the impetus, they should be more open when I say, "no that didn't move me, actually this one over here did." Also, when you say "common set of experiences and values" how are those same experiences and values not represented in modern art? Even the lowest of the low, say Transformers, surely captures some of these common experiences and values. I have challenged everyone to give an example of an important lesson from one of "the classics", and I could easily find a current "low brow" piece of art that reflects a similar message. But I am not nearly interesting enough for that to be worth their time :grin:

Some things have more significance - historical, spiritual, artistic, moral, political, intellectual - than other things. — T Clark

I think one word is different from the rest (maybe 2 if I include intellectually). If art is significant, it is historically, politically, morally, or spiritually significant. Give me an example of art that is artistically significant? Now defend that based on the definition of art - it will be impossible. We can say the Mona Lisa is artistically significant because 1) a lot of people have admired it over the years (same as Transformers - so far, yes we need a few more centuries to go by) or 2) because the established art community has decided it is more significant (more power to them, but they have zero authority to decide this based on the definition of art). Any other way a piece of art is artistically significant?

Now the crux of my argument in relation to your points

impetus behind the transmission of the canon — T Clark

:

Are they helping the average person find art that moves them? I would say no. They are just searching for like minded individuals to join the elites. Same way a Star Wars fan wants to entice more people to his (I would add or her, but not likely, hehe) side so they can all bash the Lord of the Rings together. How many people become life-long readers of Shakespeare (or anything) after high school English class?

I understand the problem: you think philosophy is just a matter of opinion.

Then riddle me this: if every opinion is equally valid and true for that person why do you bother arguing with me? My opinion is, after all, just as valid as yours (according to your view) and I (by your definition) can neither be right nor wrong. Or, I'm always right, and so are you, because we're all right all the time as long as we think we're right. So why try to convince me of anything? — NKBJ

The idea is that aesthetic (e)valuations are a matter of opinion; it's not that all other things are a matter of opinion.

"Aesthetic (e)valuations are a matter of opinion" is not itself an aesthetic (e)valuation. It's a fact. If you disagree you are wrong.

You're not wrong if you disagree that Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.

You should have figured out as a toddler, even, that just because one thing is some way, that doesn't mean that everything you can consider is the same way. Just because you could put your hand on the dog and not get burned, that didn't mean that you could put your hand on the stove when mom is cooking and not get burned. You should have figured this out early on. Just because aesthetic (e)valuations can not be right or wrong, that doesn't mean that nothing can be right or wrong. Not everything is a dog or a stove. Not everything is an aesthetic (e)valuation.

You're repeating yourself again. Like I said before, you and I are at an impasse here, so I don't see a point in continuing the conversation with you. Sorry, but I do hope you have more fruitful discussions with someone else.

You're repeating yourself again. Like I said before, you and I are at an impasse here, so I don't see a point in continuing the conversation with you. Sorry, but I do hope you have more fruitful discussions with someone else. — NKBJ

No problem. I just think it's worth responding for the benefit of other people who might read the thread in the future.

I think Zhou can respond for himself.

I think Zhou can respond for himself. — NKBJ

Sure, he probably could, barring something unusual. Other people can respond, too. That's the whole gist of public message boards. If you want something to strictly be between you and another person, private message them instead of posting on a public message board where anyone can respond to anything they like.

Generally yes, but not when we've already established that you and I have nothing to add to each other. Anyone else might actually have something interesting to say.

Again, it's not for your benefit. I don't expect you to pay any attention to it or to do anything other than this sort of bickering.

Oh, but it's so obvious how much you love to bicker with me :kiss:

I will respond. Hopefully later today.

I'm comfortable using my own judgment to decide what writing, food, music, art, etc. I like and I'm interested in. It's clear you are too. So what's the difference between you and me in this regard? I've been out of school for almost 50 years. Maybe that's the difference. I don't feel put upon by other people's opinions. Careful or I'll quote from "Self-Reliance" again. All and all, most people don't care about my opinions on these types of subjects except people with whom I share interests.

Anyway, down to business.

I was on-board until this point. I do appreciate a knowledgeable person guiding me through any art form, but it seems essential that I have some basic interest level. I feel that I am better off if I research and select the dj (or other art advisor). For example: If I cared to follow a movie critic, my first step would be to look at how they rated the last 100 movies they reviewed. If their highest rated film was Les Miserables and the lowest rated was Iron Man, then I know that I can ignore that critic (not that they are wrong, but their opinion does nothing for me). — ZhouBoTong

I am interested in the way people think about the things they care about as much as I am in the things themselves. I used to fly a lot, and I was always starting conversations with physicists, insurance salesmen, math teachers, business men, construction workers, engineers, students, anybody. It always struck me how much we all have in common when we deal with the body of knowledge of our chosen fields. I guess it's the epistemologist in me - I am fascinated by how people know what they know.

Also, I want to be shown things that I am not already familiar with, don't already like. I want to give people the chance to sell their enthusiasm to me. To share their taste with me. Even if it doesn't work, I enjoy the process and appreciate their willingness. And when the shoe's on the other foot, I love it when people give me a chance to show the things I know and care about.

For example: If I cared to follow a movie critic, my first step would be to look at how they rated the last 100 movies they reviewed. If their highest rated film was Les Miserables and the lowest rated was Iron Man, then I know that I can ignore that critic (not that they are wrong, but their opinion does nothing for me). Similarly, for a disc jockey I would KNOW the type of music they would play based on the radio station. — ZhouBoTong

I don't want a critic that I agree with, I want one who can pull me deeper into something I care about or into something new. Maybe the best would be one who could give me an appreciation for something I didn't like before.

They also need to be engaging, they need a good sense of humor, some type of charisma, and other factors that grab and keep our attention. — ZhouBoTong

Of course. People who know and love something and really want to share it with you are often very engaging. Enthusiasm can be contagious. Not always though. That's the chance you take.

I would imagine there were many local restaurant critics in the area, but you found one to be particularly satisfying. Do you think everyone would agree that he was the best critic? What if someone appreciates the blogger who spends 20 minutes explaining why their Big Mac today was the best ever? Do they have lesser or inferior tastes? Or can we just say different? — ZhouBoTong

Do you really believe that there are no real differences in quality between comparable things? That some movies, food, TV programs, paintings, photographs, novels are not better than others? That it's all just a matter of preference? If you do, then we probably don't have much more to say to each other on the subject. I really love science fiction, but a lot of it is badly written with poor characterization and little emotional involvement. I can recognize the difference between what I like and what is of high quality. Once a month I get a craving for a quarter pounder with cheese and medium fries, but I never think that it's of higher quality than what I can get at home or at a nice restaurant.

As for the Big Mac Blogger - Good criticism is not about the reviewer and what she likes. It's about something broader - about educating people in your taste. About teaching something. If the BMB is doing that, I don't see what more I could ask for.

If that was the impetus, they should be more open when I say, "no that didn't move me, actually this one over here did." Also, when you say "common set of experiences and values" how are those same experiences and values not represented in modern art? Even the lowest of the low, say Transformers, surely captures some of these common experiences and values. — ZhouBoTong

Who is this "they" that's been giving you trouble about your taste. Yeah, I know - the elites. Do you really think any of the elites really care about you or what you like? When I was in school, the curriculum specified the things I had to read and understand in order to get the credential I wanted. Like I said, that's been a long time.

As for the common set of experiences, of course newer stuff can be wonderful and universal. Probably 10,000 books are published a year in English. A lot of them will be wonderful. Lots more will be good. But Shakespeare has been around since the late 1500s/early 1600s. It's stood the test of time and moved a lot of people. To me, that means it's worth paying attention to. It's not unreasonable for you to be expected to at least experience his writing and that of a lot of others. Some of them are at the heart of the English language and how we express ourselves.

Do I like Shakespeare? I don't enjoy reading or watching his plays, but I love the way he uses language. Sometimes I can't believe his poetry. It knocks my socks off. It amazes me how many of our figures of speech come from his writing. So, suck it up, do your homework, and then never read it again.

I think one word is different from the rest (maybe 2 if I include intellectually). If art is significant, it is historically, politically, morally, or spiritually significant. Give me an example of art that is artistically significant? Now defend that based on the definition of art - it will be impossible. — ZhouBoTong

It comes back to what I said earlier, if you don't think some things are of higher quality than others; If you think that all aesthetic judgments are just matters of opinion, then we don't have much more to talk about.

Are they helping the average person find art that moves them? I would say no. They are just searching for like minded individuals to join the elites. — ZhouBoTong

Do you really think the so-called elites care about you joining them?

Well put.

Well put. — Brett

Thank you.

ideas about male honour, public order, the individual against power institutions, religion, public order, love, violence and death, and love and violence. — Brett

Ok. I believe I could find nearly every one of those themes in the Transformers series (I am not saying Michael Bay intended to include those themes, but once a person learns to identify themes, symbolism, tone, mood, etc., it is easy to find it anywhere).

Male Honor - obviously part of Transformers

Individual vs Power - I don't remember the original Transformers movie but that theme was certainly a part of the Mark Walberg episodes (many American action movies have some bit of Big Government negativity).

Religion - Again, made in America. Probably not hard to find Christian elements.

Public Order - Whose order is right? The autobots? The decepticons? The US government? Not a ton on this one, but Romeo & Juliet just has the prince yelling at everyone to stop fighting or else.

Love - Michael Bay can't make a movie without some stupid love interest. I would have to know exactly what you think Shakespeare teaches about love to find a good example.

Violence and Death - obvious

Love and violence - not sure what exactly this means. What is taught in relation to this? I doubt Transformers has much of this, but I can certainly find some garbage "after school special" that would have plenty to say on that.

I would imagine all of this just makes you roll your eyes, and you are probably sick of me by now. But I would be happy if you would say why each of these examples is less than what Shakespeare did (why is Shakespeare's description of Male Honor more valued or informative than Bay's?). I would really appreciate detailed examples of Shakespeare's successes, as that makes it easier to find a direct comparison.