Well, about the acceptance of the art work by the large majority of observers proving its truth, there are problems. The large majority of observers to the art of Louis Spohr and Ludwig van Beethoven accepted that Spohr was the greatest orchestral composer of his time; the large majority of observers to the art of a particular sculptor I believe to be entirely without talent accept that his work is genius (those that see it are a select group of friends); the large majority of attentive observers of kitties-painted-on-velvet art accept its beauty as true (they are self selected); the large majority of observers of the work of Herman Melville in his time didn't think his work was worth two cents, and a hundred years later, the large majority accepts his work with admiration; the large majority of observers of Biedermeier furniture in Germany of the early 19th Century considered it beautiful, and now it's the poster highboy for kitch; the citizens of Dublin reviled and hated the works of James Joyce, and now it is accepted by a large majority that he is worthy of enough monuments to have turned Dublin into a veritable James Joyce theme park.
<<<I think there are certain objective truths in some of Shakespeare's plays. >>>
There is certainly a lot of wisdom there. There are no 'objective' truths I can think of that qualify under Chuzz's stipulated definition, but that could be wrong. Are there some 'objective truths' that are different in kind (and not only in quality and subtlety) from those I listed in the post you're replying to? (ie, slavery is unfair; love conquers all; masturbation is vile; children speak the truth.) What would one be, for example? If there is one, it will be easy enough to test, I suspect; at least in theory.
<<<I think there is an objective truth in saying that a rectangle based on the Golden Mean is more satisfying to the human senses than some other rectangles. >>>
This is easy, I think. It's at least theoretically establishable by empirical tests. You say it's the case that this type of rectangle is more 'satisfying.' 'Satisfaction' is by definition subjective, so we can establish that by simply asking a bunch of owners of human senses, "Which of these rectangles satisfies your senses the most?" It will have to be a REALLY big bunch, but if we can agree beforehand what percentage of all of the owners of human senses we'll need to poll, and whether we are willing to forget those that have died and those still to come, and carry out the tests... well, we'll know whether you were saying something true or or something false when you made the statement, "A triangle based on the Golden Mean is more satisfying to the human senses...." My (subjective) intuition suspects that your statement about majority reaction to the Golden Mean triangle is correct.
<<<I think there is an objective truth that the York Minster Cathedral inspires a sense of awe, no matter what religion (or no religion) you profess. >>>
Same protocol. 'Awe' being subjective, (we want to keep it simple and not bother with brain wave research,) we just put a lotta lotta people in that Cathedral and ask them how it makes them feel. If we can agree beforehand how many we have to test, and of how many religions they have to be, and, of those, what percentage of them have to feel awe to make the statement a true one about most people's feelings(!)... well, it's good enough for me, I guess; though how it's 'objective' I fail to see, except in the sense it's a methodologically 'objective' determination about subjective responses to York Minster Cathedral. (I am always filled with awe of humanity in Cathedrals myself; tears come to my eyes of mingled pride for us and sorrow, too.)
<<<I think there is objective truth in saying that certain chords in music (major fifth, for example) resonate more positively in our ears than other, more dissonent, chords. >>>
Same methodology. You have said something about 'positive' resonating 'in our ears.' Now, you test by poll to find out if your statement was off base or not. You decide how bothered you are by the limitations on your polled group. The 'our' that I bolded makes the truth (or untruth) of this statement the easiest to determine by poll, if you use it to limit the pool.
<<<There are certain primitive funeral chants that are universally recognized as representing grief and suffering.>>>
This intuitively strikes me as true. I mean that I intuit that if you played primitive funeral chants to everybody on earth, and to all those who have lost loved ones in the past, and all those who will in the future, I suspect your poll of them would show that that statement is true.
That is, that it could be proven, empirically, to be true, that these sounds, these human voices used in these mournful ways, expressing these mournful feelings, would remind people of their own voices, and their own expressed feelings, at times when they were suffering grief.
I do think, in other words, that it's true, and empirically, scientifically demonstrable, that certain facial expressions and voice tone and quality are associated with happiness among (virtually) all human beings and others are associated with grief.
<<<I consider these objective truths. Perhaps you don't.>>>
I consider that you can establish whether certain statements about subjective matters are objectively accurate, ie 'true,' statements or not. If the polling is too unwieldy, or even impossible, we will have to settle for our intuitions about these matters, or on conclusions about 'all' humanity drawn from small samples, or on a combination of the two. That's what we do now, essentially.
Of course your intuition may be different from mine. But we have enough in common that I suspect our intuitions would match. |
