and we know that Bach created greater musical works than probably anyone today — Janus

So how is that statement not sophistry?

How is saying that it is not a fact sophistry?


So that my post is on topic I will bring the sophistry back in line with the thread:

Of course drugs are NOT immoral, anyone with a brain can figure that out :grimace:

Definitely! If I walk up to you on the street with a bump of cocaine, and you refuse to take it: automatic prison sentence.

I like your irony, illegal not to do illegal drugs. Lol

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

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

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.

I like your irony, illegal not to do illegal drugs. Lol — Merkwurdichliebe

That'd get my vote! We need a world leader who speaks up for the ironic drug taking community.

Ok then it's settled, I'll be the pretty face, and you be the brain behind the scenes

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). — ZhouBoTong

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

Transformers came long afterwards so it is likely to be a highly mutated derivation

(Add. But does originality equate to better, I would say so)

Transformers came long afterwards so it is likely to be a highly mutated derivation. — Merkwurdichliebe

To transform or not to transform? That is the question.

To transform or not to transform? That is the question. — S

:lol:

And: transforming is half the battle.

(i am not even saying Hamlet is worse, but surely if obviously true, there should be some evidence/reasoning — ZhouBoTong

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

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. — ZhouBoTong

I was using the term 'the arts' to refer to any and all of the arts, including music, poetry, literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. beauty and emotional power are not "measurable" because they are not quantities. But they are experienceable, and some people are better equipped to experience and respond to them than others, just as some works embody them more powerfully, more subtly, more intelligently, more authentically and so on, than others.

To say this is not sophistry, but to express something I know from experience. However there is no deductive argument that can demonstrate it, just as there is no inductive argument that will convince anyone who has not had experiences of the appropriate kind. There will always be philistines who think that there are no differences in quality between artworks, that it is all merely a matter of personal taste, and that there is no such thing as bad taste or superficial understanding when it comes to art (or philosophy, for that matter!).

As to your last sentence, I would say that the equivalent aesthetic expressions to "right' would be 'it works'; to 'wrong' would be 'it doesn't work'; to 'good' would be 'beautiful', 'evocative', 'profound' or 'rich'; to 'bad' would be 'ugly', 'mundane', 'pedestrian', 'superficial', or 'vacuous'. Of course there are many other terms I could have mentioned.

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:

More like you interpreted the way it went predictably.

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?)

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:

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

I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe I'll check out the "arguments" for why Hamlet is supposedly better than Transformers in an objective sense.

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. — ZhouBoTong

Janus is bifrontal, that is why he can disagree while remaining agreeable.

Me too. I can't disagree and get along? — ZhouBoTong

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

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, — ZhouBoTong

:blush: :kiss:

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

Alright, alright. Bad arguments. (Probably. I don't know, I haven't read them. But I'm usually right. Right?).

Alright, alright. Bad arguments. — S

Apparently, that's just your interpretation and can neither be right nor wrong :smirk: :razz:

Apparently, that's just your interpretation and can neither be right nor wrong :smirk: :razz: — NKBJ

Ah-hem. More importantly, who gave your permission to use my smirk? And don't you even think of responding with a smirk, or I'll...

I'll...

Go grab another beer!

And don't you even think of responding with a smirk, or I'll...

I'll...

Go grab another beer — S

Cheers! :smirk: :smirk: :smirk: :smirk: :smirk:

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?

How about this one:

Most, if not all, of those who can understand the content of Shakespeare can also understand the content of Transformers movies. In contrast, a significant portion of those who get Transformers movies (such as preadolescents, as one example) do not get Shakespeare. Premise: sapience has an importance to us. Conclusion: Shakespeare is a better form of artwork than Transformers … ‘cuz it’s more sapience-oriented.

Consider this analogy: chimps and elephants can paint. Humans can understand the paintings of chimps and elephants; but chimps and elephants cannot understand the paintings of humans. Therefore, human paintings are of greater aesthetic value than chimp and elephant paintings; again, because human paintings are more sapience-centric.

Or is me saying that “an elephant’s painting is of lesser aesthetic value than one of Leonardo’s” simply me being an elitist? I can deal with that, I think. And no, I'm not bashing on the Transformers movies.

I don't think that any argument would work, because they'll all be based on an unwarranted premise of the form that if something is more this or that, then it is better, when that's actually just a subjective judgement trying to pretend to be something else.

If you go by that measure, then good for you.

Fifteen pages of wasted discussion trying to overcome the impossible.

when that's actually just a subjective judgement trying to pretend to be something else. — S

So you're saying that the term "sapience" has no factual, hence impartial, hence objective referent?

I get that we're subjective about what is factually ontic. This to me, however, does not negate the presence of facts ... such as that of sapient beings (e.g., humans at large) being distinct from non-sapient, but yet sentient, beings (e.g. ameba; yes amebas can sense their environments). If I need to clarity: this by incremental gradations, as per biological evolution. (different topic, though)

So your saying that the term "sapience" has no factual, hence impartial, hence objective referent? — javra

No, I'm saying what I said. Do you need me to repeat it?

I get that we're subjective about what is factually ontic. This to me, however, does not negate the presence of facts ... such as that of sapient beings (e.g., humans at large) being distinct from non-sapient, but yet sentient, beings (e.g. ameba; yes amebas can sense their environments). If I need to clarity: this by incremental gradations, as per biological evolution. (different topic, though). — javra

I've clearly made no indication that I'm disputing that, so I don't know where you'd get that idea from. I'm disputing the reasoning. The argument won't ever work, so you're just wasting your time. You'll never get your, "Therefore, it's better", in any significant way. The appropriate response will just be, "If you go by that measure, then good for you".

So your saying that the term "sapience" has no factual, hence impartial, hence objective referent? — javra

No, I'm saying what I said. Do you need me to repeat it? — S

Then, in the context of this:

Therefore, human paintings are of greater aesthetic value than chimp and elephant paintings; again, because human paintings are more sapience-centric. — javra

how does this rationally fit in?:

I don't think that any argument would work, because they'll all be based on an unwarranted premise of that form that if something is more this or that, then it is better, when that's actually just a subjective judgement trying to pretend to be something else. — S

Rationality in this context allows us to set a measure, and draw conclusions from it, but outside of that context, it is meaningless or impotent. There is nothing forcing me or anyone else to adopt whatever measure you happen to present to us. I don't think that you're capable of demonstrating a measure that's some sort of super measure that's absolute. The holy grail of all measures!

I don't think that you're capable. I don't think that Janus is capable. I don't think that NKBJ is capable. I don't think that Merkwhatevershisname is capable. I don't think that anyone is capable. I think that that's naive.