Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?

[Ellen Stuttle]

It is a tale told by an idiot, [...]

Yes, well, you said it. Or rather, the computer which spins in your brain did. It has no meaning, no content. Cybermarks.

Ellen

[caroljane]

Sure we are bags of water with high opinions of ourselves. We are also made of starstuff, and nothing in the universe is alien to us.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Interesting. Particles with delusions and opinions.

Ellen, Ellen, Ellen...

You're not seeing the big picture.

OL is a place for working through ideas, whether the process is slow or fast.

In Bob's case, the progress has been at a snail's pace, but monumental.

Give the poor guy credit.

"Particles with delusions and opinions" is huge compared to his previous "slabs of meat."

Michael

[Jonathan]

The problem appears to be that Moralist has a delusional way of looking at himself and the validity of his ideas. He appears take the position that it is an axiomatic fact of reality that he is currently unerringly rational and brilliant, and therefore any opinion that he arrives at after a few seconds of thinking and emoting is the correct opinion, and, therefore, anyone else who is honest and rational will also arrive at the same opinion if they only put in a few seconds of effort. The fact that they are disagreeing with Moralist or asking him to prove his case is seen by him as proof that they are intellectually lazy, and that they are asking him to do their thinking for them! All they have to do is think, and if they think properly, they will find the proper answer and agree with Moralist!

J

Have we seen that before? With the alterations of deleting "and that they are asking him to do their thinking for them" and changing "lazy" to "dishonest."

Part of the next paragraph almost applies too, but she did have some interest in and knowledge of aesthetics, particularly in literature (little knowledge of other areas).

Ellen

Absolutely.

I'm reminded of a scene from the beginning of Austin Powers in Goldmember in which Steven Spielberg uses the intimidation of appealing to his authority of having won an Oscar.

Spielberg asks Austin Powers, "So, Austin, what did you think of the opening credits?"

Powers replies, "Well, I can't believe Sir Steven Spielberg, the grooviest film maker in the history of cinema, is making a movie about my life. Very Shagadelic, baby, yeah. Having said that, I do have some thoughts..."

Before Powers can continue, Spielberg holds up one of his Oscar statuettes and says, "Really? Well, my friend here thinks it's fine the way it is."

I see Rand's attempts at intimidation as at least being in that league of accomplishment, where I see Moralist as attempting it without having won the Oscar.

J

[Selene]

I know the lad needs a lot more help:

My point is that when a man says, “We define beauty”, he doesn’t actually mean that he has created an alternative definition for beauty that he alone abides by. “Ah yes, sir, I see that you believe that sunset to be beautiful. But for me, beauty is defined as the vague feeling of nausea before I throw up. This sunset – therefore – is not beautiful to me.” No. Beauty is not defined by us, because we all agree – by our very nature, it seems – on St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition: Beauty is that which when perceived; pleases. Even the dictionary agrees!

beau·ty/ˈbyo͞otē/ Noun:

1. A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight.
2. A combination of qualities that pleases the intellect or moral sense.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/beauty-is-objective.html

[BaalChatzaf]

Sure we are bags of water with high opinions of ourselves. We are also made of starstuff, and nothing in the universe is alien to us.

Carl Sagan said that billyuns and billyuns of times.

By the way. Shit is also star-stuff. Every piece of ordinary matter made of atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium is star stuff.

[caroljane]

Cripes, does that make me a plagiarist?I thought it was an old quote frequently rephrased. Anyway it is true.

[Jonathan]

I know the lad needs a lot more help:

My point is that when a man says, “We define beauty”, he doesn’t actually mean that he has created an alternative definition for beauty that he alone abides by. “Ah yes, sir, I see that you believe that sunset to be beautiful. But for me, beauty is defined as the vague feeling of nausea before I throw up. This sunset – therefore – is not beautiful to me.” No. Beauty is not defined by us, because we all agree – by our very nature, it seems – on St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition: Beauty is that which when perceived; pleases. Even the dictionary agrees!

beau·ty/ˈbyo͞otē/ Noun:

1. A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight.
2. A combination of qualities that pleases the intellect or moral sense.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/beauty-is-objective.html

Is that Moralist's blog? It seems to be advocating the same position that he is.

I want to address a few statements from the blog (hopefully for Moralist's benefit):

The fact that men disagree over what is beautiful in no way denies the existence of objective beauty.

Actually, that's exactly what it means: The fact that everyone experiences beauty differently and subjectively means that there is no such thing as "objective beauty."

If one man says, “3 + 4 = 18″, in all sincerity and belief, while another man says “No, you moron, 3 + 4 = 7″, it would be a madman who concludes that there is no such thing as Truth.

Is that a common thing? Men going around asserting that 3 + 4 = 18? No, of course it's not. It's not a common thing because math is objective. When adding three and four, one can objectively demonstrate, with one's fingers or with apples, etc., that three plus four equals seven. One can't do the same with what one finds beautiful.

One also can't do the same with a favorite flavor: one can't demonstrate to a person who hates pepperoni that pepperoni is the "objectively best flavor." Just like favorite flavors, beauty is a matter of subjective taste. There is no "objectively best flavor" just as there is no "objectively beautiful."

For if this disagreement amongst men negates the existence of Truth, than the statement that Truth is therefore ‘defined by us’ is irrelevant – it cannot held to be true.

So it is with Beauty.

That's completely illogical. The fact that one person likes X better than Y, and another likes Y better than X, does not "negate the existence of Truth." It is true that the first person likes X better than Y. And it is true that the second person likes Y better than X.

To deny objective beauty is to deny the existence of “that which when perceived; pleases.”

That's a non-sequitur. It doesn't logically follow. Not even close. If it were true, then it would also have to be true of all judgments of taste, including, as I've already mentioned, flavors, in which one would have to say that there must be an "objectively best flavor," and to deny the existence of an objectively best flavor is to "deny the existence of that which when perceived, pleases." Complete and utter nonsense.

Denying the existence of "objective beauty" is not to "deny the existence of that which when perceived, pleases," but to recognize the reality that that which pleases when perceived, pleases some differently than others, or pleases some while not pleasing others.

J

[caroljane]

J, you have said this many times, but that last sentence was the best and most succinct way you have ever said it. And what you say is true.

[anthony]

"Beauty" is objective in that it exists. Each sees it in different forms and degrees, that's all.

Claiming authority on which form or degree, or even on its measurability, is actually not subjectivity/ism - but intrinsicism. It serves as reminder that Objectivism is opposed by both those philosophies.

[Jonathan]

"Beauty" is objective in that it exists.

Is subjectivity then objective, since it also exists? How about insanity and whim? They also exist and are therefore "objective" according to the word game that you're playing, no?

J

[anthony]

"Beauty" is objective in that it exists.

Is subjectivity then objective, since it also exists? How about insanity and whim? They also exist and are therefore "objective" according to the word game that you're playing, no?

J

The existence precedes moral judgment. "Subjectivity" exists in reality, can be perceived and understood, and therefore is objective - as concept.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I see Rand's attempts at intimidation as at least being in that league of accomplishment, where I see Moralist as attempting it without having won the Oscar.

J

LOL

Ellen

[moralist]

what is ugly or beautiful is a matter of judgement or opinion, not a matter of fact. There is nothing in the physical laws of the cosmos that defines beauty or ugliness.

For example this dog, who won first prize in an ugliest dog in the world competition, is ugly or beautiful according to subjective taste. Maybe this is the most beautiful dog you ever saw, according to your subjective taste.

The objective answer to your subjective maybe is in the name of the contest... ugliest dog in the world.

[moralist]

How do know that it wasn't beautiful, and that your current subjective opinions about it aren't wrong?

The same way I know that Ayn Rand was beautiful and that M Cyrus is ugly.

Do you understand that you're being asked to identify the "way" that you know that your judgments of beauty are consistent with what you're calling "objective beauty"?

Not sure if I can keep up with all of the objections that have piled up in this thread... but as time allows I'll do my best.

I only know that our subjective judgments of beauty will always be an external corresponding harmony with what is inside of us. And likewise what is subjectively judged as being ugly will always be repugnant to what is inside of us.

Whether or not our subjective judgment of beauty agrees or disagrees with objective beauty is solely determined by the just and deserved consequences of our own actions we take as the result of our subjective judgment.

So, bottom line:

Objective reality is the final judge.

[moralist]

Jonathin:

Unfortunately, I am coming to the conclusion that he is beyond help.

I even tried a painting and got the same disconnected responses.

He, apparently, cannot, or, will not provide a verifiable and objective standard for determining "objective beauty" and "ugliness."

A...

The objective reality of your own life is the final judge which renders the verdict on your subjective judgments... just as it does on mine and everyone else.

The moral playing field is perfectly level, as exactly this same principle applies to everyone equally and without exception.

[anthony]

I gotta like this fella...

[moralist]

With no objective morality... there can be only cockroaches.

Or Chimpanzees which is us. We are Chimp Version 3.0. We eat, we sleep, we shit, we fuck and sometimes we think. Do not attribute to much glory to to our species. In the long run we are a happenstantial glitch in the Cosmos.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are free to use chimps as models for your own behavior... just as I am free to chose another standard.

[Jonathan]

Moralist,

Your position is that truth is objectively beautiful, right? Well, it's true that Ted Bundy killed people. So, according to your theory, the statement "Ted Bundy killed people" is beautiful, no?

J

[Jonathan]

How do know that it wasn't beautiful, and that your current subjective opinions about it aren't wrong?

The same way I know that Ayn Rand was beautiful and that M Cyrus is ugly.

Do you understand that you're being asked to identify the "way" that you know that your judgments of beauty are consistent with what you're calling "objective beauty"?

Not sure if I can keep up with all of the objections that have piled up in this thread... but as time allows I'll do my best.

I only know that our subjective judgments of beauty will always be an external corresponding harmony with what is inside of us. And likewise what is subjectively judged as being ugly will always be repugnant to what is inside of us.

Whether or not our subjective judgment of beauty agrees or disagrees with objective beauty is solely determined by the just and deserved consequences of our own actions we take as the result of our subjective judgment.

So, bottom line:

Objective reality is the final judge.

Well, I just checked with objective reality, and it turns out that I was right that Ayn Rand was not beautiful, but was average in looks, and that Miley Cyrus is beautiful.

J

[moralist]

Some folks insist on believing their own assertions.

There are only two basic world views.

And we each have already freely chosen.

Each of us believes they have made the right choice.

And each of us believes that others who did not make the same choice that we made, have made the wrong choice.

Short of the reality of a genuinely life altering or life threatening situation which has the power to alter that choice...

...we each take what we chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with us to our graves...

...which I'm happy to do.

[moralist]

Moralist,

Your position is that truth is objectively beautiful, right? Well, it's true that Ted Bundy killed people. So, according to your theory, the statement "Ted Bundy killed people" is beautiful, no?

J

Yes.

It's a beautiful truth to know what is ugly.

[moralist]

How do know that it wasn't beautiful, and that your current subjective opinions about it aren't wrong?

The same way I know that Ayn Rand was beautiful and that M Cyrus is ugly.

Do you understand that you're being asked to identify the "way" that you know that your judgments of beauty are consistent with what you're calling "objective beauty"?

Not sure if I can keep up with all of the objections that have piled up in this thread... but as time allows I'll do my best.

I only know that our subjective judgments of beauty will always be an external corresponding harmony with what is inside of us. And likewise what is subjectively judged as being ugly will always be repugnant to what is inside of us.

Whether or not our subjective judgment of beauty agrees or disagrees with objective beauty is solely determined by the just and deserved consequences of our own actions we take as the result of our subjective judgment.

So, bottom line:

Objective reality is the final judge.

...Miley Cyrus is beautiful.

J

Then the objective reality is that creature harmoniously matches what is inside of you.

[Jonathan]

Moralist,

Your position is that truth is objectively beautiful, right? Well, it's true that Ted Bundy killed people. So, according to your theory, the statement "Ted Bundy killed people" is beautiful, no?

J

Yes.

It's a beautiful truth to know what is ugly.

Wow. It's pathetic that you think that it's beautiful that Ted Bundy killed people.

J

[Jonathan]

How do know that it wasn't beautiful, and that your current subjective opinions about it aren't wrong?

The same way I know that Ayn Rand was beautiful and that M Cyrus is ugly.

Do you understand that you're being asked to identify the "way" that you know that your judgments of beauty are consistent with what you're calling "objective beauty"?

Not sure if I can keep up with all of the objections that have piled up in this thread... but as time allows I'll do my best.

I only know that our subjective judgments of beauty will always be an external corresponding harmony with what is inside of us. And likewise what is subjectively judged as being ugly will always be repugnant to what is inside of us.

Whether or not our subjective judgment of beauty agrees or disagrees with objective beauty is solely determined by the just and deserved consequences of our own actions we take as the result of our subjective judgment.

So, bottom line:

Objective reality is the final judge.

...Miley Cyrus is beautiful.

J

Then the objective reality is that creature harmoniously matches what is inside of you.

Why did you dishonestly edit my comment? Doing so is very ugly.

My comment was:

"Well, I just checked with objective reality, and it turns out that I was right that Ayn Rand was not beautiful, but was average in looks, and that Miley Cyrus is beautiful."

I reported what objective reality judges to be beautiful. And then you cut that part out of my statement and pretended to be reporting a different judgment from objective reality. I already identified it! Why are you trying to counter it with falsehoods?

Objective reality says that you are wrong and that you're lying. And objective reality also just told me to tell you that it doesn't like the fact that you edited my comment. It agrees with me that that was a really shitty maneuver. Objective reality says that you're being a total asshole.

J