[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?
Good point. I guess you've pegged the practical part of this
non-cognitivist
(NC) theory, in terms of every day practice.
For example, let's say someone says "Britney Spears is better than Fripp"
(which I'm sure comes across as repugnant to many of us!). All we ask is
a
clarification of "better" because it is a general and nebulous term (or in
the extreme view, meaningless for non-cognitivists). That statement,
according to NC's is meaningless....how could it possibly be universally
true independent of individuals' minds, or even inside one's own mind?
This
statement might appear to be absurd to some folks, because there are some
who feel very strongly that the statement is false (many of us here), and
others (a younger and different generation) who may think it is true, but
it
very well can't be both true and false. The statement, according to NCs,
just can't be possibly true or false, because it is impossible for them to
imagine an actual fact (empirical or introspective) that would correspond
to
the statement (which is the common criteria for statements to be true on
many epistemologies). What would the constituents of this fact be?
Empirical
data? Entities in the mind? What? What is "better"? Can I examine Britney
Spears and find this thing called "better"? Where is the attribute? In the
mind? If so, how can a person have a property that is in someone else's
mind? Nuts. It's all nonsensical according to NCs, an abuse of language
and
violator of Occam's Razor.
So, what to do with the problem statement? What to do, what to
do....hmmmm.
We re-translate. We ask the person making the statement to clarify what
they
mean. They might say, "Well, Fripp really doesn't do anything for me, and
I
absolutely love to dance to Britney Spear's music....or I love the way
Britney's music makes me feel...or, [in coverse], Fripp's Soundscapes
really
put me in a nice state of mind...." and so on. Now we are getting
somewhere!
Now we are not hiding behind the nebulous language which introduces this
mysterious entity/property of "better". We are saying what we mean,
reflecting Miles' words: "Stop saying things you don't mean folks!" That
harpoons the issue right in the kisser, man. It doesn't get any better
than
that in terms of revealing the problem.
Yet, it is interesting how this above NC theory still leaves a sense of
dissatisfaction with folks, because as I mentioned to Any offline:
"A.J. Ayer pissed a lot of people off when he published his book as the
finally blow from the Logical Positivists to rationalists and
metaphysicians. There were people literally hunting him down on the
streets
if the UK). Logical Positivists made people very angry and defensive
because
they stomped all over something that most people think as sacred, namely
values. It makes people irate when a philosophy states that their use of
the
term good, evil, right, wrong, etc...is meaningless and just their emotive
reaction. Human beings are comforted in the idea that their values are
somehow "out there", objective" and authorities....it makes them feel
secure, vs. ladened with doubts and thoughts that they are on their own
with
their own, with only emotion as the basis of their principles." - now
enters Existentialism and the notion of taking responsibility for one's
own
actions....no objective security blanket out there to bail us out! :)
So, moreover, despite the bad taste that NC puts in the mouths of
traditionalists, rationalists, and objectivists...the outcome I think is
productive, because it forces us to be honest with each other. X is better
than Y tells me nothing, but if someone elaborates on how a piece of music
makes them feel in detail, this is really insightful! This is the type of
reaction I like to hear about my own music. "Better" just complicates
things. I thank the NC theory in this case.
Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Ward" <miles932@gmail.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: RE: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have
an
excellentcomposition?
I find a lot of value in the re-examination of "easy language" that
aesthetic anti-cognitivism encourages. Stop saying things you don't mean
folks! I feel that I'm closer to the truth of the matter when I give that
kind of finite context to my evaluations, or when others do so when
evaluating me. It tastes to me to be more genuine, rewarding.
Tasty!
-Miles
-----Original Message-----
From: Krispen Hartung [mailto:khartung@cableone.net]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an
excellentcomposition?
----- Original Message -----
From: "andy butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>
>> If you understand the theory and premises, then you will understand the
>> points I made.
> Unless the theory is flawed, which it seemed to be.
They're all flawed, so that seems to be a moot point, not an
advantage to any of us. You aren't offering a counter-theory that
you think is not flawed, I hope...correct? Find me a speculative
theory of these sorts that is both complete and consistent
(showing that Gödel was wrong). Flawed is a requirement of
even being invited to the poker game. It is the thinkers in human
history who claim that their theories are air tight and have no flaws that
scare us and become dangerous. I like flawed. It means
that speculative thinking is not a dead discipline, and that
all those philosophy books in the libraries ought not to be
burned afterall, because each theory has some piece of
expanding human understanding. So, I am cool with
retorts that a theory is flawed, provided one also admits
that the theory they are proposing in its place has its
own imperfections, and that we have agreed to take
the analysis down a deeper level.
But I think we may have worked this out offline, eh?
Kris