Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?

[Jonathan]

I agree that the question "Is X really beautiful?" makes no more sense than "How des X really taste?" Indeed, I made this point to you in regard to Diana calling some people's beauty reactions "just wrong" and, as I recall, got objections to the point from you.

Nonetheless, this doesn't establish that there's no property of X such that a large percentage of people would respond with "tastes good" or "is beautiful."

You seem to me to argue in your replies to Darrell that pleasure responses are deuces wild and have no relationship to survival needs.

Pleasure responses are unreliable. Humans respond with pleasure to many things which are bad for them, and they respond with displeasure to many things that are good for them. The average wilderness survival manual includes detailed instructions on how to carefully test potential food sources before consuming them. It does so because going by taste/enjoyment will likely make one sick or dead.

If that were the case, how would our ancestors after ancestors after ancestors in previous generations have survived?

Not all of them did survive. Many became lessons to others in the unreliability of pleasure responses. Those who survived did so by using their ability to reason and discover what was bad for them and what was good, and to adapt their behavior accordingly. They trained themselves to overcome their pleasure responses and to instead consume that which was good for them.

J

[Jonathan]

An aesthetic reaction is basically an emotional reaction. A person's emotional reactions depend upon that person's values which are chosen, at least in part, by a process of observation and reason --- that is, by an objective process.

Um, no. That's not the way that it works. Objectivity is a specific process of judgment. Emotions don't follow that process, no matter how diligently a person believes that he has programmed his emotions. Claiming that one has objectively chosen one's values and therefore that one's emotions are indirectly based on a process of objectivity doesn't make the emotions themselves objective. Not even "in part." Objectivity is not indirect. It is not transferable. The fact that one has applied objectivity to choosing certain values yesterday does not in any way make his emotional judgments or choices objective on a different subject today. The only way in which judgments and choices today can be objective is if they followed the process of objectivity. Each judgment is a separate instance, and if the process of volitionally applying logic and reason via a clearly identified objective standard has not been followed in each instance, then those that have not followed it are not objective.

If skyscrapers are so terrible, why do people build them?

I didn't say that skyscrapers are "so terrible." I've simply pointied out the fact that they can be interpreted differently than you interpret them, as can landfills and anything else. Any object can be interpreted as being good or bad in some way.

What I was trying to get at was the unpleasantness of rubbish heaps. That unpleasantness is at least partially a function of the objectively detrimental aspects of rubbish.

And I was demonstrating the subjectivity of your interpretations by identifying aspects of skyscrapers that are objectively detrimental, and aspects of rubbish heaps that are objectively beneficial.

No, what I'm saying is that any reference to observation and reason is a reference to objective facts. If a reason for feeling a certain way ultimately, only references other feelings, then the reason could be considered purely subjective.

"Referencing" objective reality when making a subjective opinion doesn't make the opinion objective. Nor does it make it "partially objective." There is no "partially objective." Subjectivity is that which includes personal biases, feelings and desires. Objectivity is that which excludes them. It's black or white. On or off. If a judgment includes any amount of subjective biases, it is not objective.

But, if there is a reason based at least in part on observable facts, then it is at least partially objective.

No. Objectivity is like being like being pregnant. Something is either objective or it is not. A judgment either contains personal biases or it does not. It either refers to and takes into account only objective facts or it does not. Any amount of contamination by subjectivity makes the judgment subjective.

I never claimed a universal objective standard because I never said that aesthetic judgments were purely objective.

Again, there's no such thing as a judgment being "partially objective." A judgment either contains subjective biases or it doesn't.

People immediately have emotional reactions. Are you arguing that all emotional reactions are purely subjective?

I'm arguing that all emotions are subjective. Your use of the terms "purely subjective" and "partially objective" are meaningless. They're like saying "he's completely dead instead of just mostly dead" or "she's somewhat pregnant."

Are you arguing that people never consider objective value when making aesthetic judgments?

I'm arguing that any judgment which contains personal biases and feelings is subjective, by definition, and that aesthetic judgments are therefore subjective. Aesthetic judgments contain personal biases, and they are not the result of having volitionally applied logic and reason using an objective standard. They are statements of taste and sentiment.

If a man meets a beautiful woman --- a young, healthy, curvaceous woman with radiant skin --- she doesn't cease to be young, healthy, curvaceous or cease to have radiant skin just because she turns out to be stupid and annoying. So, the aesthetic judgment of beauty remains because such a judgment is made based on limited information and still conveys objectively valid information about her ability to have healthy children.

That's bullshit. A woman's appearance conveys nothing about her ability to have healthy children. If we could judge such things by appearances, we wouldn't need the science of prenatal care. There are a hell of a lot of very fertile women in the world who are ugly and unhealthy looking, and they have children who are healthier and stronger than the children of pretty people.

J

[Jonathan]

So I choose to do business with people like me with whom it is not possible to have an argument because of our common ethical values.

I've been involved in a fulfilling romantic relationship for almost 45 years with someone with whom I share "common ethical values" and a whole lot else. We argue over something or other, or several somethings or others, most every day. Rarely angry arguments. Disagreements, mostly temporary.

I argue with myself in process of coming to conclusions.

Frankly, you sound like cloud la-la land in speaking of relationships in which it isn't possible to have an argument.

Ellen

I'd love to be fly on the wall at a gathering of Greg's business associates in his absence.

J

[caroljane]

I'd like to have a nice coffee morning with his wife and Ellen!

[caroljane]

As I said on other thread, passive-aggressive. That is not a knock, it is how I would describe myself in marital disagreement mode, "I'm not going to argue with you because I know I'm right."

[Jonathan]

What I really enjoy is the guru act (which I've seen quite a lot of in O-land). I've always found it especially enjoyable when it's exhibited by a person who has just shown himself to be incapable of comprehending and answering the simplest of questions that everyone else in the discussion is grasping with ease.

J

[moralist]

So I choose to do business with people like me with whom it is not possible to have an argument because of our common ethical values.

I've been involved in a fulfilling romantic relationship for almost 45 years with someone with whom I share "common ethical values" and a whole lot else. We argue over something or other, or several somethings or others, most every day. Rarely angry arguments. Disagreements, mostly temporary.

I argue with myself in process of coming to conclusions.

Frankly, you sound like cloud la-la land in speaking of relationships in which it isn't possible to have an argument.

Ellen

I'd love to be fly on the wall at a gathering of Greg's business associates in his absence.

J

That's just indulging in a liberal fantasy that my business associates share your values. If you ever want to do business with decent people, first become one yourself, and the decent will seek you out.

[caroljane]

Jonathan a liberal fantasist, now that is funny.

[caroljane]

So, sometimes he wears a sunbonnet and goalie gloves. That makes him a conservative fantasist, you silly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd love to be fly on the wall at a gathering of Greg's business associates in his absence.

Jonathan,

I wouldn't be so fast. I don't know Greg, but he strikes me as the kind of businessperson who leaves his associates far better off than they otherwise would have been, if not rich.

And I suspect he chooses his business relationships with good criteria. In other words, productive, honest, and competent people who think like he does.

So I can easily imagine if you were a fly on the wall, you might be surprised to hear all the good things they say about him behind his back.

I speculate. But it's good speculation.

I don't use Greg's all-or-nothing rhetorical style, but I believe it's a mistake to think that just because he is not a critical thinker in the academic sense, he's a fool. I detect a lot of wisdom from experience in him.

Better put, based on his posts, if he ever wrote a book on aesthetics or morality, I probably would not read it. And probably wouldn't think too much about it if I did.

But if I needed to do business with someone who is in the business he is in (and I don't know what that is), or if I needed to leave my kids with a stranger in an emergency, or if this country fell apart and I became dirt-poor and hungry and needed a hand up to get on my feet, my gut tells me Greg would be my man.

In a heartbeat.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'd love to be fly on the wall at a gathering of Greg's business associates in his absence.

Jonathan,

I wouldn't be so fast. I don't know Greg, but he strikes me as the kind of businessperson who leaves his associates far better off than they otherwise would have been, if not rich.

And I suspect he chooses his business relationships with good criteria. In other words, productive, honest, and competent people who think like he does.

So I can easily imagine if you were a fly on the wall, you might be surprised to hear all the good things they say about him behind his back.

I speculate. But it's good speculation.

I don't use Greg's all-or-nothing rhetorical style, but I believe it's a mistake to think that just because he is not a critical thinker in the academic sense, he's a fool. I detect a lot of wisdom from experience in him.

Better put, based on his posts, if he ever wrote a book on aesthetics or morality, I probably would not read it. And probably wouldn't think too much about it if I did.

But if I needed to do business with someone who is in the business he is in (and I don't know what that is), or if I needed to leave my kids with a stranger in an emergency, or if this country fell apart and I became dirt-poor and hungry and needed a hand up to get on my feet, my gut tells me Greg would be my man.

In a heartbeat.

Michael

I think that if we were flies on the wall, we'd probably hear his business associates say something similar to what you just said. They'd probably agree that he works hard, knows what he's doing in his chosen profession, and delivers what he promises. And then they'd probably say that those virtues are why they put up with his silly opinions outside of his chosen profession -- his posing as a sage while apparently unknowingly showing himself to be hopelessly incoherent on subjects about which he offers his la-la land judgments and guidance.

He doesn't seem to be the type who would pick up very quickly on the fact that he was being humored or tolerated.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

Or admired?

Michael

[Jonathan]

That's just indulging in a liberal fantasy that my business associates share your values.

I'm a liberal? Heh.

Anyway, my comment wasn't a fantasy, liberal or otherwise, about your business associates' values. I don't know them, so I wouldn't presume to know what they value. Rather, I was assuming that, despite whatever specific values they might or might not hold, if they were people of normal intelligence who have been exposed to the same type of irrationality and avoidance of substantive criticism that you've displayed on this thread, they'd very likely recognize that, at least when it comes to your opinions on issues outside of your profession, you bluff and bluster and dodge and evade, and that you pose as a guru while obviously not having a clue what you're talking about.

If you ever want to do business with decent people, first become one yourself, and the decent will seek you out.

So, are you saying that your theory is that evil people don't seek out decent people to victimize? They don't pretend to be decent in order to fool decent people? Are you suggesting that anyone who has been victimized in business by others must have deserved what he got? Would that be another example of your theory of the internal harmonizing with the external? In effect, if someone gets ripped off, it is proof that he wasn't a decent person, because decent people didn't seek him out, but, rather, evil people did?

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Or admired?

Michael

No, his default position appears to be to assume that he's admired, so it seems pretty unlikely that he'd fail to pick up on any occasion when he was actually being admired.

J

[Jonathan]

Greg, we've asked you several times on this thread to explain how you discover if something is "objectively beautiful" when you assert that you, like the rest of us, are limited to having subjective judgments of beauty.

Is the answer that God tells you or somehow guides you?

J

[moralist]

Jonathan a liberal fantasist, now that is funny.

Just the fantasy is liberal... not necessarily the fantasist.

Greg, we've asked you several times on this thread to explain how you discover if something is "objectively beautiful" when you assert that you, like the rest of us, are limited to having subjective judgments of beauty.

My judgments of beauty are as totally subjective as everyone else's. And my subjective judgments will either agree with or disagree with what is objectively beautiful.

When we subjectively declare something as being beautiful, that is because it harmoniously matches on the outside what we are on the inside.

What is objectively beautiful always possesses an uplifting moral quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives it as being beautiful.

And in a like manner, that which is objectively ugly always possesses an immoral degrading perverted quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives ugliness as beauty.

[moralist]

I'd love to be fly on the wall at a gathering of Greg's business associates in his absence.

Jonathan,

I wouldn't be so fast. I don't know Greg, but he strikes me as the kind of businessperson who leaves his associates far better off than they otherwise would have been, if not rich.

Wow... thanks for your kind words, Michael.

I learned business from my father who died when I was 19. He couldn't have given me a greater gift. At his funeral, at least a hundred total strangers showed up. They were his customers. He was beloved by so many people I had never met.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Jonathan a liberal fantasist, now that is funny.

Just the fantasy is liberal... not necessarily the fantasist.

In what way is it "liberal" for me assume that anyone and everyone, including conservatives and liberals, would probably react to your guru-wannabe irrationality and incoherence in the same way that people here have?

Greg, we've asked you several times on this thread to explain how you discover if something is "objectively beautiful" when you assert that you, like the rest of us, are limited to having subjective judgments of beauty.

My judgments of beauty are as totally subjective as everyone else's. And my subjective judgments will either agree with or disagree with what is objectively beautiful.

When we subjectively declare something as being beautiful, that is because it harmoniously matches on the outside what we are on the inside.

What is objectively beautiful always possesses an uplifting moral quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives it as being beautiful.

And in a like manner, that which is objectively ugly always possesses an immoral degrading perverted quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives ugliness as beauty.

And once again, you haven't answered the question.

Do you not understand the question?

J

[caroljane]

Jonathan drops the gloves!

[moralist]

Jonathan a liberal fantasist, now that is funny.

Just the fantasy is liberal... not necessarily the fantasist.

In what way is it "liberal" for me assume that anyone and everyone, including conservatives and liberals, would probably react to your guru-wannabe irrationality and incoherence in the same way that people here have?

Greg, we've asked you several times on this thread to explain how you discover if something is "objectively beautiful" when you assert that you, like the rest of us, are limited to having subjective judgments of beauty.

My judgments of beauty are as totally subjective as everyone else's. And my subjective judgments will either agree with or disagree with what is objectively beautiful.

When we subjectively declare something as being beautiful, that is because it harmoniously matches on the outside what we are on the inside.

What is objectively beautiful always possesses an uplifting moral quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives it as being beautiful.

And in a like manner, that which is objectively ugly always possesses an immoral degrading perverted quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives ugliness as beauty.

And once again, you haven't answered the question.

Do you not understand the question?

J

how you discover if something is "objectively beautiful"

Same as everything else.

The reality of the just and deserved consequences of my own actions is the only judge that renders the final verdict of whether or not my subjective opinion of beauty agrees with what is objectively beautiful.

How many times have I said this?

Do I need to make a sig out of it?

Greg

[Jonathan]

The reality of the just and deserved consequences of my own actions is the only judge that renders the final verdict of whether or not my subjective opinion of beauty agrees with what is objectively beautiful.

If Darrell were to say that 3 + 4 = 5, and you were to say that 3 + 4 = 7, anyone could determine which of you was objectively correct. All that we would have to do is to consider all of the relevant factual information, and selectively ignore none of it. We'd simply apply logic and reason to reality.

But the same is not true of your incoherent theory of beauty. Even with the aid of the examples that you've given of images of Ayn Rand and Miley Cyrus, no one would be able to identify any rhyme or reason behind which pieces of relevant factual information you've arbitrarily decided to consider, and which you've arbitrarily decided to ignore.

Earlier, you identified Ayn Rand as being beautiful. You say that you're a Christian. Ayn Rand was not only an atheist, but one who identified faith in God as being a form of evil, and as being particularly destructive to man's proper method of survival. She identified religious belief as the rejection of reason and as an unjust condemnation of man. She identified Christ as being an evil symbol representing the idea that men are to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their inferiors. She compared religion to a torture rack on which men are condemned not for their vices but for their virtues.

She was also a married woman who had an affair with a married man. She didn't just do a grinding twerking dance for a few minutes on stage, but actually performed sexual deeds for years on a married man. And when the affair ended badly, she publicly lied about the reasons for her split with her lover, and made false accusations against him.

Why don't those facts make Rand an "objectively ugly c***"? How can you rate her as being "objectively beautiful" rather than being among the "various shades of fugly"? I would think that, to a Christian, views and behaviors like Rand's would qualify as being of "an immoral degrading perverted quality." Yet you selectively ignore them when claiming to identify "objective beauty." Miley Cyrus is defined and judged by five minutes of her life that you dislike, but Ayn Rand isn't judged for "immoral degrading perverted" views and behavior that she committed for years? That's like claiming that 3 + 4 can "objectively" equal 5 when you arbitrarily decided to exclude certain information when arriving at the sum.

Since you've said that the beautiful is the moral and true, apparently that means that you think that the judgments that Rand made of Christ and religion are good and true, and that years-long extramarital affairs and the vindictiveness of a woman scorned are virtuous.

My judgments of beauty are as totally subjective as everyone else's. And my subjective judgments will either agree with or disagree with what is objectively beautiful.

According to your theory, Rand's fucking a married man harmoniously matches what you are on the inside. Her lying about him and trying to destroy him after the affair apparently resonates with something in your soul.

When we subjectively declare something as being beautiful, that is because it harmoniously matches on the outside what we are on the inside.

Here are six images of women:

The first is of Miley Cyrus years prior to her twerking performance. Is the image retroactively "objectively ugly"? Is that the way your theory works? If a person's appearance was unchanged from one day to the next, but she became a murderer of her own children on the second day, would your theory state that anyone who had judged her to be beautiful on the previous day turned out to be objectively wrong?

Please apply your theory of beauty to judging the remaining five images, and explain how a person would go about determining which are "objectively beautiful" and which are "objectively ugly."

How much information about each person do we need to learn before we can call their images "objectively" beautiful or ugly? What are the "objective" rules that you use for deciding which of their beliefs and behaviors are not to be factored in to our decisions?

What if you're unable to discover anything about a few of these people, and therefore you can't arbitrarily consider or ignore any aspects of their lives, and you have to make your judgment of beauty based only on the images? Then, later, if it is discovered that you thought that an image of an evil person was beautiful, how would you discover which aspects of your insides was in harmony with that evil?

What is objectively beautiful always possesses an uplifting moral quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives it as being beautiful. And in a like manner, that which is objectively ugly always possesses an immoral degrading perverted quality which only appeals to that same quality which is within the person who subjectively perceives ugliness as beauty.

So, since you rate Ayn Rand as objectively beautiful, that must mean that her condemnation of religious believers like you is "an uplifting moral quality." It sounds like you have a lot of inner conflicts to deal with, and a lot of evil to rid yourself of!

How many times have I said this?

Do I need to make a sig out of it?

Um, the idea isn't to keep on repeating statements that don't actually address the questions that you're being asked. More repetition of your incoherent, self-contradictory conclusions isn't an effective substitute for substantively addressing the challenge that you're facing, which is to explain the basis and method behind your conclusions.

J

[moralist]

So, since you rate Ayn Rand as objectively beautiful,

I don't do anything objectively because I'm a wholly subjective being. The beauty of Ayn Rand's strength of character is my own subjective judgment. Now whether or not my subjective judgment agrees with objective reality can only be decided by the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

that must mean that her condemnation of religious believers like you is "an uplifting moral quality."

I'm not a religious believer.

I only live by what I know.

[Jonathan]

So, since you rate Ayn Rand as objectively beautiful,

I don't do anything objectively because I'm a wholly subjective being. The beauty of Ayn Rand's strength of character is my own subjective judgment. Now whether or not my subjective judgment agrees with objective reality can only be decided by the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

More repetition of incoherence. What will be the just and deserved consequences of your irrationality and incoherence? How is it affecting your judgments of beauty?

that must mean that her condemnation of religious believers like you is "an uplifting moral quality."

I'm not a religious believer.

I only live by what I know.

So, are you saying that Christianity isn't a religion???!!!

J

[moralist]

So, are you saying that Christianity isn't a religion???!!!

I'm not a religious believer.

I only live by what I know.

[caroljane]

Look Moralist, there is only one Cryptic Commenter here, and Brant beith his name and he hath diciples.And cryptic answers to straightforward questions are unBrantian and border on trolling.