Great, then you should be able to concisely summarize Kant's explanation of how and why we think aesthetic judgements are universal and say why and how you disagree with his argument.

Sure, but I'm not participating in a test or something like that. That's not a game I'm interested in playing. If you're interested in a good-faith, mutually respectful conversation, though, that's something I'd be interested in. Ego battle stuff can take a hike.

It seems that they have created a category tailor made for Dylan then. I mean under that criterion Dylan isn't merely the best, or doesn't merely stand out amongst a small number of competitors, he would be literally the only candidate.

You appear to be equating skill with an instrument with musicianship. This is a mistake.

There's not much point saying, on a philosphy forum, that you disagree with some philosopher on some issue, if you're not prepared to argue in support of your disagreement.

Even if I were to agree with that, presenting it with attitude as if you're looking for a response to an exam probably isn't coextensive with presenting an argument against something.

But at any rate, why would you feel that it requires an argument to say that it's not true for onself that one doesn't really believe it is merely a matter of taste? You don't believe that would be a simple matter of reporting one's beliefs/dispositions?

Also, I hate meta stuff where people lecture others about how they should communicate. I'm probably not going to respond well to that, just fyi.

If you are claiming is that just for you it's not true that you think aesthetics "is (not?) merely a matter of taste" then sure that requires no argument. But it's also not relevant to Kant's claim which was about people in general, or the general nature of aesthetic judgements. One exception, or even a few exceptions, does not refute Kant's claim and is hence not of any interest.

So there are no a priori disagreements? This example would appear to demonstrate that there are.

Kant says we don't really believe that aesthetic judgements are matters of taste. I don't agree with him because I do really believe that aesthetic judgements are matters of taste. The statement is therefore false if it is claiming to be a universal truth or trivial if it's merely claiming that there are some people for whom it is true. This does not require argument, it is self-evident.

Kant is saying that if you understand yourself to be merely expressing your opinion about or response to a work of art or nature in the form of "I like it" and nothing more than that, then you should not take yourself to be expressing an aesthetic judgement at all.

If you are claiming is that jusy for you it's not true that you think aesthetics "is (not?) merely a matter of taste" then sure that requires no argument. But it's also not relevant to Kant's claim which was about people in general, or the general nature of aesthetic judgements. One exception, or even a few exceptions, does not refute Kant's claim is hence not of any interest. — John

I was simply saying something lighthearted (though serious) about his "we."

I don't feel that aesthetic judgments are not merely matters of taste.

Certainly there are people who do feel that aesthetic judgments are not merely matters of taste.

Who knows what the number of people would be on each side of that? The only way to know that would be to do a survey.

Kant is saying that if you understand yourself to be merely expressing your opinion about or response to a work of art or nature in the form of "I like it" and nothing more than that, then you should not take yourself to be expressing an aesthetic judgement at all. — John

Which is basically a version of a "no true Scotsman" or "true metal/false metal" argument. One is saying that one is going to refuse to call a different take on what Fs are "x." It's not a "true x" because it doesn't have the features one personally requires to call it an "x."

This is an awesome song. Poetry? Literature? It's an awesome song.

Man in the Long Black Coat
Bob Dylan

Crickets are chirpin' the water is high
There's a soft cotton dress on the line hangin' dry
Window wide open African trees
Bent over backwards from a hurricane breeze
Not a word of goodbye not even a note
She gone with the man in the long black coat.

Somebody seen him hangin' around
As the old dance hall on the outskirts of town
He looked into her eyes when she stopped him to ask
If he wanted to dance he had a face like a mask
Somebody said from the bible he'd quote
There was dust on the man in the long black coat.

Preacher was talking there's a sermon he gave
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied
It ain't easy to swallow it sticks in the throat
She gave her heart to the man in the long black coat.

There are no mistakes in life some people say
It is true sometimes you can see it that way
But people don't live or die people just float
She went with the man in the long black coat.

There's smoke on the water it's been there since June
Tree trunks uprooted beneath the high crescent moon
Feel the pulse and vibration and the rumbling force
Somebody is out there beating on a dead horse
She never said nothing there was nothing she wrote
She gone with the man in the long black coat.

There's a difference between an entertainer and someone who can actually play an instrument. Next you'll be telling me someone lip syncing to someone else's voice is a great singer.

Morrison's poetry wasn't very good. It tended toward drug induced rambling, although he was able to create interesting but disjointed imagery. That was at least my assessment and consistent with his persona of a rebellious, anti- establishment, counter culture icon. Had he won the Nobel prize, the objection wouldn't be that he wasn't properly a poet, but it would be that he's just far to weak an artist for consideration.

The fable of the 60s was personified by Morrison and his music, but he is dwarfed by Dylan in talent, rigor, intelligence, and significance.

The fable of the 60s was personified by Morrison and his music, but he is dwarfed by Dylan in talent, rigor, intelligence, and significance. — Hanover

That's one way of looking at it I suppose. I agree that Morrison wasn't much of a poet. But Dylan wasn't a poet at all, he was just a song-writer.So insofar as he at least wrote some poetry Morrison is a better poet than Dylan. Cohen is a far better poet again; he is actually a good poet in his own right in my book.

I agree with you that Dylan dwarfs Morrison in talent, if you mean talent as a songwriter. And i agree that he dwarfs Morrison in terms of sgnificance, if by that you mean influence. As for the "rigor and intelligence"; that's empty rhetoric. Sure you can say Dylan wasn't stupid enough to totally fuck himself and his life with drugs and alcohol, but Dylan was also lucky to be at the right places at the right times with the right formulas for success, and perhaps not to have had the extreme psychological issues Morrison did.

Have you ever read Dylan's Memoir Chronicles?


"We recorded "Man in the Long Black Coat" and a peculiar change crept over the appearance of things. I had a feeling about it and so did he. The chord progression, the dominant chords and key changes give it the hypnotic effect right away--signal what the lyrics are about to do. The dread intro give you the impression of a chronic rush. The production sounds deserted, like the intervals of the city have disappeared. It is cut out from the abyss of blackness--visions of a maddened brain, a feeling of unreality--the heavy price of gold upon someone's head. Nothing standing, even corruption is corrupt. Something menacing and terrible. The some came nearer and nearer--crowding itself into the smallest possible place...the lyrics try to tell you about someone whose body doesn't belong to him. Someone who loved his life but cannot live...In some weird way, I thought of it as my "I Walk the Line".

Actually it's Dylan's response to an old Scottish Ballad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daemon_Lover . In the old ballad the wife takes off with the devil and leave her husband dangling.

I like this cover by Steve Hackett, it seems to follow Dylan's description, with a great, hypnotic guitar lead.

https://youtu.be/6aCXgFdUhbk

Wow! That description is very close to my experience. Ancient archetypes awaken to the sounds and words of that song.

Great song. I think we're nit-picking about a great man. All prizes are somewhat arbitrary.

I'm just reading Suze Rotolo's memoir of the Freewheelin' Dylan, very acute on the shift in personality visited upon him by fame and Albert Grossman.

Dylan talks about first meeting Suze Rotolo:

"She was the most erotic thing I'd ever seen. She was fair skinned and golden haired, full-blooded Italian. The air was suddenly filled with banana leaves. We started talking and my head started to spin. Cupid's arrow had whistled by my ears before, but this time it hit me in the heart and the weight of it dragged me overboard. Suze was seventeen years old, from the East Coast. Had grown up in Queens, raised in a left-wing family. Her father worked in a factory and had recently died. She was involved in the New York art scene, painted and made drawings for various publications, worked in graphic design and in Off Broadway theatrical productions, also worked on civil rights committees--she could do a lot of things. Meeting her was like stepping in the tales of 1,001 Arabian nights. She had a smile that could light up a street full of people and was extremely lively, had a particular type of voluptuousness--a Rodin sculpture come to life. She reminded me of a libertine heroine. She was just my type."

Is her book good?

Kant is saying that if you understand yourself to be merely expressing your opinion about or response to a work of art or nature in the form of "I like it" and nothing more than that, then you should not take yourself to be expressing an aesthetic judgement at all. — John

I'm not sure how you think saying the same thing a different way gives it more justification. If Kant is making an imperative out of an opinion as yuour use of 'should' suggests he is doubly mistaken.

But Dylan wasn't a poet at all, he was just a song-writer. — John

That is such a silly distinction. Is Robert Burns not a poet then? Much of his work that we now read as poetry was originally song writing (far more in fact than most modern readers are even aware). What about the poetry that was later used in lieder, in oratorio, and cantata. Has that somehow become not poetry now we've discovered how well it suits performance to music? Are Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience somehow diminished by association with the song form?

There's a difference between an entertainer and someone who can actually play an instrument. Next you'll be telling me someone lip syncing to someone else's voice is a great singer. — wuliheron

There's a difference between an entertainer who doesn't play an instrument and one who does, of course.

There's no difference between an enterainer who plays an instrument and other sorts of performers who play instruments whose work is made public.

The fable of the 60s was personified by Morrison and his music, but he is dwarfed by Dylan in talent, rigor, intelligence, and significance. — Hanover

"Rigor"? Anyway, I like him just as much as a singer, frontman, etc. as I like Dylan, and I like him almost as much as a lyricist.. I don't think he was as multifaceted as Dylan though, since I don't think Morrison really wrote beyond lyrics, I'm pretty sure he didn't do any arranging, he didn't play other instruments (at least not very extensively) to my knowledge, etc. But I wouldn't say that one person is better than someone else just because they play more instruments, and that's not a general sentiment, otherwise everyone would hold folks like Todd Rundgren, Prince, etc. in much higher regard than most other musical artists. (At that, they're two of my favorites, and especially with Rundgren there's almost no one I like better.)

Anyway, aesthetic assessments are subjective. There aren't right answers re whether Dylan or Morrison is better, or any good at all, etc.

Of course, but that merely makes Dylan a great entertainer rather than a great musician. Bruce Springsteen is another great example and is known as "The Boss" because among other things the guy has real presence and integrity on and off stage, but to call him a great musician is a stretch to say the least.

Regardless, the award was used for political purposes and it lost significant credibility IMHO. — Hanover

The Nobel Peace Prize was always politicized in my opinion. Al Gore won the prize for Chrissakes - granted, I commend his work exposing anthropogenic climate change, but I was never clear on what that had to do with peace. On the other end of the political spectrum, I'm also not clear on why, for instance, Mother Theresa won the prize: nothing she did helped to promote peace, as far as I can tell.

But I agree about Obama: he didn't deserve the prize (which is no criticism of him: the vast majority of people, politicians or not, don't deserve the prize), and I don't think it was something which he sought for himself or believed himself worthy of. Regardless, as you say, he was a war president. How could he not be? He had Bush's messes to clean up.

Is her book good? — Cavacava

(Suze Rotolo) Yes I think it is good. She seems to look back without any rancour or awe, with indeed, memories of love, and it's a differently-angled insight into how things were 1960 to 66.

... why, for instance, Mother Theresa won the prize: nothing she did helped to promote peace, as far as I can tell. — Arkady

Mother Theresa was an extremely insightful choice. The old bag tended to the dying on the streets of Calcutta and founded an order of nuns. Had she instead become a general, given her sandblasting personality, we would have had nothing but war, war, war, war, war.

Leonard Cohen on Bob Dylan's nobel award: “To me, it's like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the highest mountain.”

Of course, but that merely makes Dylan a great entertainer rather than a great musician. — wuliheron

???

Bob Dylan sings, plays guitar and plays harmonica. He can also play bass and keyboards. That makes him a musician.

Leonard Cohen on Bob Dylan's nobel award: “To me, it's like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the highest mountain.” — unenlightened

Nice one.