familyjules
Group: Members
Posts: 1190
Joined: May 2004 |
 |
Posted: Aug. 12 2023, 05:27 |
 |
| Quote (Sentinel_NZ @ Aug. 11 2023, 17:20) | | Quote (familyjules @ Aug. 10 2023, 06:35) |
...in your opinion. :-D
Jules |
...Ha, fair comment, Jules :-D
But that extremist position is not really tenable, is it? After all, there are intelligent, informed opinions, and ignorant, stupid ones. There is the saying which no doubt you subscribe to: "Opinions are like a**holes - everyone has one". But this sentiment is in fact trite and specious, because it suggests that all those things are equivalent, but the reality is that not even all a**holes are the same. A baboon's rear end, for example, is particularly egregious and unpleasant to behold, in comparison to say that of, I don't know, let's say Megan Markle clothed in a pert dress. To get even more technical (and a bit gross), a veteran proctologist could probably relate that the idea that all of the body parts they treat are equal is far from the truth - some would be afflicted with hemorrhoids, fistulas, prolapse and the like, possibly even cancer; while others would be fine and healthy. By extending the above analogy, in light of the faulty nature of the axiom, then the same also applies to opinions, surely.
Now, according to your opinionated logic, there is simply no such thing as aesthetic value at all, because everything is purely subjective and, in consequence, completely meaningless in any conventional sense (a "convention" is anything at all agreed up by any party, from a social clique up to a society or the entire world. Conventions are what make the word go round - we need them). In other words, there can be no kind of conventional wisdom or general agreement about anything. This is called a reductio ad absurdum fallacy argument - the end consequence is that you could claim that (correctly) calling black and white "black and white" is only an individual, abstract opinion and thus any alternative idea is equally valid, so that black can become white, or red, or yellow, or rainbow-colored, and vice versa. In other words, everything in the world, even every possible utilitarian conventional judgment, including those concerning morality, right and wrong, good and bad, wise and foolish, skillful and inept, love and hate, same and different, one and many, sane and deranged, etc. is reduced to meaninglessness and everything becomes chaotic - this is, alas, the inescapable logical consequence of your philosophy. But who , besides you, wants to live in a world like that?
By that reasoning, for example, the artistic value of the Mona Lisa painting is equal to a canvas covered in excrement thrown by naughty monkeys, because any evaluation of the respective works is nothing but arbitrary individual opinion, wholly immune to any rational consensus.
Also, you refute yourself at every turn, because you yourself claimed that for instance the Beach Boys' album Pet Sounds is "definitely not middling-to-average" and other similar statements. Since you are now consistently claiming that any such opinion has no meaning to anyone in the world whatsoever beyond your own personal mind and internal thoughts, why I wonder would you ever think to offer such views that stand in contradiction to your own stated philosophy in the first place? It makes no sense, given your stance, for you to share any feelings about music, art, or any possible sort of conventionally-apprehended object or immaterial ethic that could be subjectively interpreted and expressed.
This is called, in a word, brute nihilism or aesthetic anarchy and is, no doubt, a diabolical position to adopt, and very few people today besides yourself would actually go along with such an ideologically extremist philosophy of art and general value systems. (Of course there have been somewhat similar movements in the past throughout history, such as Dadaism and so forth, which even then arose in response to the barbarity of World War One and not as a stand-alone doctrine in its own right - but none of them really stood the "test of time"). Frankly, I doubt that even you yourself truly believe it but are simply digging in and "doubling down" at this point out of pride and to save face 
But fair enough...we all have our ego to protect. It's so precious, after all..in some ways, it's all any of us have to hold on to.
In my humblest of humble opinions, that is. :-D |
It's morning here. I had a few beers last night, and my head feels quite woolly. I certainly don't have the heart or the focus to read all of what you wrote here just now. Some of it appears to be quite funny, at first glance. And some of it appears to be designed to stir me up by goading me. Ah, I really can't do this right now.
Here's a short take. Do I think there is a barometer of quality which exists outside of people's individual tastes? Yes, I do. Do I think that MY personal tastes are more closely allied to this than the average music fan's tastes? Yes, I do. Do I think that YOUR personal tastes are more closely allied to this than the average music fan's tastes? Hmm. I'm not so sure.
As for saving face - come on, man - do you really think that I'm that invested in an exchange on a music forum? Especially when I have a hangover to deal with.
Now please dismount from your high horse before you start to look like some sort of pompous general posing for a portrait.
Jules
--------------
I like beer and I like cheese
|
