Magnus Anderson wrote: iambiguous wrote:I've responded to this above: Why I don't agree with you that I did not stick to the topic.
Yes, you did. But I was talking about
this post of yours.
Note to others:
I'm sorry but what on earth is he getting at here? That post is all about beauty. On a thread created to discuss beauty. Or is he protesting that I'm discussing beauty instead of my being off-topic?
Also, how bizarre [and ironic] is it that in thread devoted to a discussion of beauty, you now decide to make our discussion one about me being off topic!!
Isn't that "derailing the thread"?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Absolutely. I spoke about that in
this post of mine. I am partly to blame. But it is you who started it all (and it's not something that you do occasionally.)
Again, a little help please. Or are these points just further distractions, allowing him to avoid bringing his intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions where there have always been conflicting views about beauty.
My advice: take it to a new thread.
Magnus Anderson wrote: That's a good idea. But I'd want all of the off-topic posts that have to do with whether or not you are off-topic be moved to that new thread as well. Perhaps I should contact a moderator to solve that.
Yes, perhaps you should. Keep us advised.
I'm sorry, but: Huh?!!!
I don't [won't, can't] force anyone at ILP to read my posts, let alone respond to them wholly in sync with my own interests.
Instead, I make it crystal clear that my own interest in beauty or morality or politics revolves around an existential examination of the definitions and meaning that analytic sorts give to the words in their technical/"conceptual" assessments.
Not interested in that? Then move on to all of the "serious philosophers" here who are.
Magnus Anderson wrote: But that's what you're trying -- that's what you've been trying in the last 10 years or so. And you had quite a lot of success. You made quite a lot of people endlessly argue with you.
This is just more Stooge Stuff from my point of view. Making me the issue. But I've already got three.
But I'll make this simple: I am only interested in the extent to which you are willing to take your definitions and concepts about beauty and examine why, if definitions and concepts can be concocted [using logic and the tools of epistemology] in order
to arrive
at objective assessments of beauty, there are still so many conflicts regarding 1] which faces, bodies and works of art
are beautiful and 2] why there are even more conflicts regarding which are
more beautiful than others. Or which are the
most beautiful of all.
I've already acknowledged that nature is an important factor in all of this, but the human species is the only species to be shaped and molded as well by historical, cultural and experiential factors. Memes some call them. And beauty is certainly no exception in that regard.
Conventional meaning? And how is that not deeply rooted in vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?
Let's go to the dictionary and look up "conventional"
1] based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
Synonyms:
normal standard regular ordinary usual traditional typical common run-of-the-mill
pedestrian commonplace unimaginative uninspired uninspiring unadventurous unremarkable
2] (of a work of art or literature) following traditional forms and genres.
Synonyms: orthodox traditional established accepted received mainstream customary conservative
traditionalist
Magnus Anderson wrote: What concepts are associated with what words is indeed based on "what is generally done or believed". But what those words represent is not necessarily so.
In other words, what the word "beauty" means is culturally determined but the thing the word represents is not necessarily so. (And my claim is that it isn't.)
Again, in regard to what particular thing, experience, relationship etc., involving human beings expressing conflicting points of view about its beauty? What do words used to encompass beauty "necessarily represent" in regard to what in particular? Or should we just take a poll, fall back on the consensus in any particular community and call that "conventional wisdom". So,if someone in a community finds a particular abstract artist's work beautiful but the consensus in town is that abstract art is not beautiful...that settles it?
And what I want are arguments that convince me that, using the tools of philosophy, an objective understanding of beauty and morality and God itself is possible.
Magnus Anderson wrote: What you want, as I understand it, is for someone to present an argument that will convince everyone that this or that person is or is not truly beautiful.
No, what I want is a world in which there are considerably less objectivists around who insist that only their own standards of beauty in regard to faces and bodies and works of art count. And then attain political power and are able to enforce their own standards on others.
Though sure if it actually can be demonstrated that all rational and logical people are obligated to think of beauty in one and only one way, that would be a startling revelation. If that were the case, each individual could voice an opposing opinion but they would be labeled objectively irrational.
Your kind of world or not?
In other words:
No, I'm suggesting only that given my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, "I" think that "here and now". Unlike the objectivists, I am not arguing that all others who wish to be thought of as rational human beings are obligated to think the same.
Magnus Anderson wrote: The difference seems spurious to me. I'm not sure if you recall but you've been accused of pretend humility in the past (both by me and other people.) You insist that you're humble and that you're uncertain about your beliefs but your actions -- the fact that you're so pushy with your opinions, so unwilling to expose your rationale, so quick to judgment and so dismissive of other people's opinions -- speak otherwise. That's why people have accused you of "being guilty of your own accusations" or "projecting yourself".
Fine. You are entitled to think that you really do know me just as others are. And I am entitled to disagree. But doesn't it reach the point where you decide to move on to others less intolerable to you? That is an option for you, right?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Well, calling my posts 'intellectual contraptions" that exist "up in the clouds" does not sound like praise to me. And the same goes for calling me "serious philosopher" (quotation marks are yours) and "objectivist". It's a value judgment that is clearly a negative one.
I can only react honestly to others as "here and now" I do. In discussing beauty your posts strike me as being intellectual contraptions that are far more intent on focusing in on definitions and concepts. And I've read nothing from you on this thread that leads me to believe that you do not see your own definitions and concepts as being either the optimal manner in which to construe beauty or the only rational manner.
But only when the focus is on a particular face, body or work of art can we examine that more substantively.
Well, in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, if you are not embarrassed by posts like these, you ought to be.
Magnus Anderson wrote: I ought to be embarrassed? But but but . . . just a couple of sentences ago, you said:
"And do you really imagine, given the arguments I have been making for years now, that I would be telling others what they should or should not do in the is/ought world?"
Here I was thinking back to the days when I think I was a lot like I think you are now. And any number of things I believed then embarrass me now. So, sure, there's a part of me who finds it hard to believe that those who think those sorts of thing now aren't embarrassed.
But here you and I construe the nature of identity -- "I" in the is/ought world -- in seemingly very different ways.
Magnus Anderson wrote: But it's a good thing you say "in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein". That makes all the difference. That totally proves you're not a dogmatist. Not your actions but how you decorate your actions.
Yes, it makes all the difference "in the world" to me.
But in order to explore that more in depth with you we would need to focus in on a particular context and then in regard to beauty or morality or religion or political prejudices we would have to compare and contrast the components of our respective philosophies in regard to value judgments.
On a new thread.