Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (40336)	6/13/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, I think you are erecting disputes where no disagreement exists (an old Jedi mind trick used by academics and journalists). I cannot imagine a day passing where I do not listen to music or read literature. BUT, individual tastes are not universal, and that is the only distinction I was trying to draw. I am reminded of Mel Brook's wonderful spoof of Alfred Hitchcock films -- High Anxiety. In the film, Brooks has a psychiatrist bumped off by being trapped in a car playing rock 'n roll. I suppose that the equivalent for a modern teen might be being forced to listen to opera. We each create our own hell. It occurs to me that you never answered my questions. So let me give you two that lie at the heart of the issue. If there is an objective way of discriminating between the quality of art, exactly what is it? Can you show me how it might apply in a comparison between Mansfield Park and Bleak House? If you agree with me that there is no objective methodology (i.e., one that does not rely on the personal expertise or opinion of the investigator) then I think it is fair to say that we are in agreement. TTFN, CTC

To: jbe who wrote (40336)	6/13/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I haven't read the exchange between you and Chuzz very closely, but I did come across this paragraph of yours, which seems to me to reveal a change of subject by you that obfuscates Chuzz's point: If you did not feel that the "truths" of Art were inferior to the truths of science, but just different, you would/should have said that their truths were not on the same footing. As it is, you said they were not on an equal footing. Separate, but unequal. One superior, one inferior. And Art is inferior, because:.... It seemed to me, as I read your characterization of Chuzz's point, that up until the clause I bolded, you and Chuzz were discussing the applicability of the word 'truth' to, on the one hand, Science, and on the other, Art. And that Chuzz had made a simple point that described his definition of the word 'truth,' which can be anything he wants it to be for the purposes of a particular discussion, and the applicability of that definition to, respectively, Science or Art. And that, using his definition of 'truth,' Science presented 'truth' that was not an on "equal footing" with the 'truth' presented by Art. But all of a sudden his stipulation of the species of 'truth' to which he was referring, his very definition of it, has been cast aside by you, as you make the change from their truths not being on an "equal footing," (Chuzzlewit's claim,) to the claim that he has said, "and Art is inferior." In philosophy, I believe that moment is called ignoratio elenchi. That means something along the lines of changing the subject from the one at issue to another, usually one with a strong emotional charge. The subject was whether 'truth' is to be found more in Art or in Science. The Art lover Chuzz said it was to be found more in Science. You changed the subject to a purported declaration by Chuzz that Art per se was 'inferior' to Science. (If my perception of the argument, which I have admittedly not followed to its conclusion, is correct.)