there's millions and millions of pages in which people explain all of the ways in which Shakespeare is deep and complex and artistically great. — NKBJ

Yes, and there's millions and millions of pages explaining how the bible or the quoran are true and worth following writtenby expert theologians (undoubtedly more than there is commentary on Shakespeare). Does that make what they write any more true? No wait...theology is different to art so that makes whatever you want to say about art automatically right and any analogy I draw automatically wrong.

You see, all these papers and articles and books are page after page and word after word of evidence. These are people who have meticulously documented Shakespeare's greatness. — NKBJ

A million opinions doesn't miraculously turn opinion into fact. This is exactly the problem with authoritarianism, from Millgram to Trump. At no point in time does the subjective content of someone's thought become objective fact. Not if a billion people believe it. We cannot gather a billion people and cause the sun to rotate around the moon by believing in it hard enough. You know Peter Pan was a story, right?

Do you understand the word "crude"? Because I was certainly not that. — NKBJ

Ah, well that settles it, you weren't crude because you don't think you were. I was crude because you think I was. I think we're spotting a pattern here.

In any case, I am STILL waiting for anyone to explain the ways in which Bay's movies are anywhere near as deep as Hamlet? Or are you just gonna hang your hat on the "entertaining to me" peg? — NKBJ

It's really simple. If people think/obtain what they believe are 'deep' thoughts about a Michael Bay film, but obtain fewer from Hamlet, then for them Michael Bay movies are more deep than Hamlet. I'm not one of those people, so I can't help you with the details.

You see, all these papers and articles and books are page after page and word after word of evidence. These are people who have meticulously documented Shakespeare's greatness. If even half of it is true, he's much better than Bay. By the way, I'm still waiting on anyone offering such evidence in Bay's support? — NKBJ

What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give.

It's not true that he IS great outside of that context, outside of persons feeling how they feel about him.

We can't give evidence that Bay is better than Shakespeare--or worse than Shakespeare--outside of someone liking one or the other more, because there are no facts about one being better than the other aside from that.

On your view, by the way, you wouldn't be able to make sense of me saying "That's not what I meant." That's a pretty common thing for people to say, which makes it problematic to not be able to make sense of it. — Terrapin Station

This entire post makes no sense.

What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give. — Terrapin Station

They're not writing about their "feelings."

We can't give evidence that Bay is better than Shakespeare--or worse than Shakespeare--outside of someone liking one or the other more, because there are no facts about one being better than the other aside from that. — Terrapin Station

One can like whatever one wants. No disputing that.

HOWEVER, there are things like philosophical breadth and depth that Bay just doesn't measure up to.

By your logic, there is no way to measure the difference in quality between a personal essay by an average middle schooler and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all just how you "feel" about it. Nevermind that if you actually look at the texts, instead of just blustering here because you like the idea that all opinions and "feelings" are equal, it's just obvious which one contains more thought, more ideas, more insight.

And frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who wants to maintain that the middle school paper and the Kant text are equal. In such a case, you're either just being stubborn cause you care more about "winning" an argument in an internet forum with a stranger than about the truth, or you just don't know enough to contribute to this conversation.

Yes, and there's millions and millions of pages explaining how the bible or the quoran are true and worth following writtenby expert theologians (undoubtedly more than there is commentary on Shakespeare). Does that make what they write any more true? No wait...theology is different to art so that makes whatever you want to say about art automatically right and any analogy I draw automatically wrong. — Isaac

Another false analogy. Theologians are trying to draw from religious texts to make metaphysical claims about the world.
But the fact that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible does give evidence that these are more meaningful than "Transformers" ever could be.

At no point in time does the subjective content of someone's thought become objective fact. — Isaac

These aren't just subjective opinions.

You know Peter Pan was a story, right? — Isaac

You're conflating two entirely different concepts: understanding that a text contains a certain level of depth and thought and insight, versus thinking that the story itself is true. Not sure how you made that jump, but it's definitely moving in a strawperson direction.

It's really simple. If people think/obtain what they believe are 'deep' thoughts about a Michael Bay film, but obtain fewer from Hamlet, then for them Michael Bay movies are more deep than Hamlet. — Isaac

There is more possible depth for them to find in Hamlet than Transformers. And it doesn't matter that someone is too immature to spend some time with Hamlet. The fact is that the depth is there for anyone who is willing to explore it. Bays movies simply cannot provide that.

Analogy: let's say there are two caves. Cave A is a hundred times longer and deeper than cave B. Just because a person explores the entire cave B and merely glances at cave A doesn't mean cave B is magically deeper and longer. To that person it may seem that way, but that doesn't make it true.

They're not writing about their "feelings." — NKBJ

Oh yes they are insofar as they're making any evaluative statements a la things being good, bad, better, worse, beautiful, sublime, crass, etc.--anything like that.

HOWEVER, there are things like philosophical breadth and depth that Bay just doesn't measure up to. — NKBJ

The philosophical content of artworks comes from the consumer, unless we're talking about text/dialogue that's literally a philosophical argument. But the "philosophical content" of a work isn't at all limited to that.

At any rate, "A work with more philosophical breadth/depth is better than a work with less" would simply be a preference that an individual has.

By your logic, there is no way to measure the difference in quality between a personal essay by an average middle schooler and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. — NKBJ

There's no objective way to measure it, because there is no objective quality in that sense of the term.

It's all just how you "feel" about it. — NKBJ

Which is subjectively measuring it. That's how we measure such things, subjectively. So it's not true that there's no way to measure it in my view. It's just that it's a subjective measurement

.

Nevermind that if you actually look at the texts, instead of just blustering here because you like the idea that all opinions and "feelings" are equal, — NKBJ

Opinions are only "equal" from a perspective that's completely irrelevant to opinions. So you're forwarding a stupid straw man.

it's just obvious which one contains more thought, more ideas, more insight. — NKBJ

"Works that 'contain' more thought, ideas, etc. are better" is just a preference that an individual can have. (Leaving aside the other issues with that.)

And frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who wants to maintain that the middle school paper and the Kant text are equal. — NKBJ

I probably wouldn't be able to, either. But you know what I take even less seriously? Someone who wants to maintain that the inequality isn't about preferences that people have.

We're not getting anywhere here. We're just talking in circles. Let me know when you have something new to add. In the meantime, I'll just agree to disagree.

We're not getting anywhere here. We're just talking in circles. Let me know when you have something new to add. In the meantime, I'll just agree to disagree. — NKBJ

You should have corrected your straw mannish misconceptions at least, but I guess that's too much work.

You should have corrected your straw mannish misconceptions at least, but I guess that's too much work. — Terrapin Station

That's straw person. ;)

Yay--can't wait until the next time you claim that I think that there's no way to judge/measure works, morals, etc. or the next time you claim that I think all works/moral stances/etc. are equal. That will be fun to correct again.

you claim that I think that there's no way to judge/measure works, morals, etc. or the next time you claim that I think all works/moral stances/etc. are equal. — Terrapin Station

You claimed that. Not me.

But that's just your MO.

Terrapin: "X"
Other person: "Not X"
Terrapin: "I never said X! How dare you say I said X? You're so dumb for thinking I said X. I said X which is totally different from X."

:rofl:

You claimed that. — NKBJ

No I didn't. I explicitly explained above that I'm not at all saying that things aren't measurable or that they're all equal.

What do I have to say for you to be able to understand that? Aren't you at least interested in understanding the viewpoints that you're supposedly arguing against?

Oh dear. I see you're thoroughly confused now.

But I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you all the times and ways in which you did say what you are now denying you said.

Sorry, but arguing with someone like you is just a waste of time.

Oh dear. I see you're thoroughly confused now.

But I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you all the times and ways in which you did say what you are now denying you said.

Sorry, but arguing with someone like you is just a waste of time. — NKBJ

Well, or at least your mistaken beliefs about what my views even are, apparently. Maybe in the future, not necessarily with me, try to not be so quick to judge, so quick to stick someone on a particular template, and take the time to listen and think about what they're saying?

I see this is a "do as I say and not as I do" moment for ya.

Another false analogy. — NKBJ

Thought it would be, seems to be a recurring theme. You do know what an analogy is? It's not meant to be the same in every way, it's just for highlighting relevant similarities.

But the fact that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible does give evidence that these are more meaningful than "Transformers" ever could be. — NKBJ

No, it gives evidence that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible (and not in "Transformers"), for some reason. Not for whatever reason you want. It tells us that it has happened, it does not tell us why. If you think you know why ("because there's more depth in the bible"), then forward an argument to that effect. Of all the possible reasons why millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible (time, social pressures, religious zealotry, conformity, dogmatism...), what leads you to the conclusion that the 'depth' of those books is the primary reason?

These aren't just subjective opinions. — NKBJ

Fine. What makes them objective? It can't be widespread agreement alone (we've established that widespread agreement on its own is not enough to make opinion objective). You obviously think that certain classes of opinion have some special property which means that they become objective when agreed upon by enough people. I'm just asking what this property is and how it's effect is manifested.

You're conflating two entirely different concepts: understanding that a text contains a certain level of depth and thought and insight, versus thinking that the story itself is true. Not sure how you made that jump, but it's definitely moving in a strawperson direction. — NKBJ

No, I was being facetious. Peter Pan... "If you really believe you can fly...you can fly...you just have to believe"

There is more possible depth for them to find in Hamlet than Transformers. And it doesn't matter that someone is too immature to spend some time with Hamlet. The fact is that the depth is there for anyone who is willing to explore it. Bays movies simply cannot provide that. — NKBJ

This is the point I'm asking you to support. Re-asserting it is not an argument. What are your reasons for believing this? If its just more people have found depth in Hamlet (or more people of a certain class, to be specific), then I just refer you to the question above - of all the hundreds of complex reasons why people may have talked about the depth they have found in Hamlet (age, social pressures, academic conformity, educational influences, bias, ignorance...) why do you think your reason (that there is objectively more depth to be found) is the main one?

Cave A is a hundred times longer and deeper than cave B. Just because a person explores the entire cave B and merely glances at cave A doesn't mean cave B is magically deeper and longer. To that person it may seem that way, but that doesn't make it true. — NKBJ

False analogy (my turn). We can measure cave depth using measurements that all those interested in the matter agree on. The person who merely glances at cave A can simply be shown the measurements proving that cave A is the deeper one. With Hamlet, if a person is shown the text, shown the interpretations and analysis, and still disagrees there is depth, what other measure can you use?

In your cave analogy, there is the estimated length from a glance (subjective) and there is the verifiable length by tape measure (objective).

With Hamlet there is the opinion from reading it (subjective) and there is the millions of pages of other people's opinion from reading it (still subjective, since mass agreement alone does not make opinion objective).

It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't?

Well, or at least your mistaken beliefs about what my views even are, apparently. Maybe in the future, not necessarily with me, try to not be so quick to judge, so quick to stick someone on a particular template, and take the time to listen and think about what they're saying? — Terrapin Station

A colleague of mine in the history department used to complain that they'd set a question like "Explain how the Whig reforms affected religious tolerance", or something like that, and one or two of the papers would come back as if the question had been "Write everything you know about the Whig reforms".

I find writing here like that. Mention some position, say relativism, and you might as well not write anything else, all you get in return is "Everything argument I know that counters relativism" regardless of what you actually write.

Still, it passes the time...

It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't? — NKBJ

No, I haven't. Never seriously studied English literature.

Any interest in actually addressing the argument, or is there anything else about my academic career you'd like to know first?

No, I haven't. Never seriously studied English literature.

Any interest in actually addressing the argument, or is there anything else about my academic career you'd like to know first? — Isaac

It's just pretty obvious that you're talking about things you don't understand. If you ever had studied English, or given any time to reading analyses by people who have, you wouldn't be saying it's "just their opinion."

I have already, repeatedly, pointed to sources which could enlighten you on the subject. That would clear up the argument. But are you actually interested in seeing the proof or do you just want to stubbornly maintain your own unwarranted position?

If you ever had studied {the Bible}, or given any time to reading analyses by people who have, you wouldn't be saying it's "just their opinion."

I have already, repeatedly, pointed to sources which could enlighten you on the subject. That would clear up the argument. But are you actually interested in seeing the proof or do you just want to stubbornly maintain your own unwarranted position?



Changed the topic. Does that now make Christianity objectively true?

Does that now make Christianity objectively true? — Isaac

We're not talking about whether everything Shakespeare said was true.

We're not talking about whether everything Shakespeare said was true. — NKBJ

Yes, I see why you've misunderstood me there. I deliberately said Christianity (the religious enterprise) not the bible (the book I exchanged for 'English' in your post).

What I mean is - does the exact same argument you gave about English make you think that the things people say about the Bible are true? No. It may well make you think there's something there to be investigated (and even then you'd have caveats), but you're not asking that I 'have a look' at what English scholars have to say, you're demanding that I accept what they say as being objectively true simply by virtue of their saying it.

The false dilemma issue keeps cropping up. First of all, everything scholars say about Shakespeare can't be true because they disagree sometimes. Secondly, just because everything that say isn't true, doesn't mean the consensus that Shakespeare was a great writer and some other writers weren't is false. It's not 'just' an opinion that is no better than any other random opinion nor is it objectively true the way, say, physical measurements are. There are degrees of objectivity. You don't jump straight from subjective (just an opinion of no greater worth than any other as if you were discussing ice-cream flavours) to unquestionable objective truth (as in demonstrable scientific fact). There's loads of room in between those two and that's where artistic judgements lie. And you don't have to accept any particular artistic judgement, but if you can't make an argument for your particular judgement, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you. Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. It's not impossible they're wrong but they're winning the argument.

What Baden said:

Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. It's not impossible they're wrong but they're winning the argument. — Baden

:cheer:

There are degrees of objectivity. — Baden

What would objectivity even refer to if there are "degrees" of it?

There are degrees of objectivity. — Baden

So what's your reasoning for believing that? How would such a system work for you? Do things become more objective the more people believe them (that seems fraught with social and political problems to me), or do things become more objective the more justification someone can give (if so, how do we decide what justification counts without succumbing to the problems of the first option)? I'm just not seeing how this scalar objectivity would work.

Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. — Baden

As above, how do we determine that what they have provided is evidence? I could (in theory) over the next few weeks write millions of words about Michael Bay's films, would the quality of his films actually change as I write the words?

Do things become more objective the more people believe them (that seems fraught with social and political problems to me), — Isaac

And it's simply an argumentum ad populum.

So what's your reasoning for believing that? How would such a system work for you? Do things become more objective the more people believe them (that seems fraught with social and political problems to me), or do things become more objective the more justification someone can give (if so, how do we decide what justification counts without succumbing to the problems of the first option)? I'm just not seeing how this scalar objectivity would work. — Isaac

I think the example I gave explains it. There are certain preference claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that strawberry flavour ice-cream is better than chocolate flavour ice-cream if you prefer chocolate ice cream. And there are certain factual claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that the temperature today is 50 degrees Celsius if you have carried out reliable and corroborated measurements that show it's 15. Questions of artistic merit fall somewhere in between. Whether or not we can agree, it is not senseless to have the debate. We can give reasons based on what art is and what it's supposed to do with reference to the genre it's a part of.

I could (in theory) over the next few weeks write millions of words about Michael Bay's films, would the quality of his films actually change as I write the words? — Isaac

No, but you may be able to uncover aspects of Michael Bay's films that show they had more quality all along than was recognized. And it's possible that people reading your words may change their level of appreciation on understanding your arguments. Classes on art appreciation, for example, are not a con. There is something to be appreciated. Teaching someone to try to prefer strawberry flavour to chocolate flavour, on the other hand, is likely to be a waste of time.

Whether or not we can agree, it is not senseless to have the debate. We can give reasons based on what art is and what it's supposed to do with reference to the genre it's a part of. — Baden

I get this bit and I agree with you that discussing the merits of art is not a worthless activity. The point that was originally made is that some people feel less welcome to that discussion if they bring with them certain views. It is simply unheard of for serious English literature to discuss pulp western novels and Shakespeare in the same faculty, so the issue here is not really about the legitimacy of the discussion, it is about the legitimacy of the conclusion.

The problem arises the moment you start to make claims regarding authority. It is serious risk (in my opinion) to act as if claims of authority do not require a high standard of objective reasoning, history is littered with examples of the damage such claims can cause. If you are going to claim that the English scholars have any authority over a non-scholar (even if it is just their opinion is more true, rather than absolute truth) I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify that authority, for the reasons I've given above.

So far all I've heard by way of such justification is; there's lots of them, they've put in a lot of work, they broadly agree on core issues, there's no objective facts which contradict them.

These are all reasonable justifications, but they still apply to far too many nefarious groups for me to accept them. Most well-supported religious and political movements, for example, could claim authority by the same standards.