Search results for query: *

Well, beauty is, as I've said before "what pleases when apprehended." It's a transcendental, a quality predicated of all existing beings by virtue of their existence, similar to truth, goodness, unity, and being. All of the transcendentals are convertible to each other and with being. So, the...

Okay, so you wanted to judge whether some bit of entertainment was good entertainment, right? Not argue about beauty?

Well, there's your problem. Goodness is neither subjective nor quantifiable.

Well, if we're talking past each other, then perhaps we should start over from the beginning. We both agree that the market value of a thing is ultimately based on demand (how much people want the thing) and supply (how much of that thing exists and is available). We disagree on whether or...

How do you know that you’re not the one who’s gone off topic? Because I’ve been talking about objective standards for stories and art from the beginning.

There's a difference between "better" and "more valuable." What makes a work of art better is something that's 1) useful and 2) beautiful. What makes a work of art more valuable is supply and demand. If you insist on conflating different things, then we can't talk. Value is and always has...

Yes, "resonation" requires a person. But "resonation" isn't beauty. Beauty is what elicits the response of "resonation." What part of this are you not understanding? You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about, because you're equivocating again, this time between beauty and people's...

It's not a tautology because you misread what I said. Yet again. You have a habit of doing that. This is what I wrote when explaining myself. You ignored this. Why? Why can't you argue with this? Why can't you try and refute this? Am I wrong here? If so, explain how. Don't just ignore what I...

Only if you ignored what I actually said. The subjectivist position would have us believe that there is nothing about the art itself that moves us; rather, it's our own psychology that creates beauty ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"). In contrast, objectivist position believes that it is...

But the purposes of art and entertainment are different. Art expresses beauty. Entertainment amuses an audience. There can be things that are both entertainment and art, but you can have one without the other.

Ah, but see, to Scholastics such as I, truth, goodness, and beauty are fundamentally the same thing approached in different ways. I don’t see how you can say one of the three are ”subjective” and the others aren’t. They are all basically analogous to each other. When you say art has no...

For an action to be objectively good, then the act would have to be considered good independent of who judges it. You and I think pederasty is evil. NAMBLA, meanwhile, sees nothing wrong with it. Therefore, moral values are subjective. For a scientific fact to objectively true, then the fact...

First, you can't tell the full story from the price. Part of the genius of prices on the free market is that you don't need all the information that goes into them to make the decision on whether or not to purchase something. Prices tell you, at most, the intersection of supply and demand...

If you agree with me on all that, then will you concede that the market value isn't an indicator of anything but the economic value of an object and therefore has nothing to do with the actual quality of it per se?

Something is bad when it doesn't fulfill its function. For example, if I say I have bad eyesight, we all know that means that my eyes aren't good at fulfilling their purpose (which is seeing). Goodness and badness are analogical properties, meaning that what is good for eyes isn't going to be...

Lanmandragon, I cannot read your terrible grammar. Could you please rewrite what you said so that I could rebut you properly? Objective doesn't mean inter-subjective. Objective truth is true in itself, independent of the opinions of anyone. We find out the objective nature of things through...

This conversation reminds me of the words of Don Colacho: "'Taste is relative' is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste."

How is it objective? The only objective fact about it is that the market as an institution values it at that price. It's not inherent to the worth of the object in itself. I wasn't bringing religion into this. I was using it as an example of how your thinking was fallacious. If I were to...

Why should we assume that the market is the determiner of objective value? The Austrians proved that economic value is, at its core, subjective.

And your fallacies are the Genetic Fallacy and the Circumstantial Ad Hominem. That human beings rationalize the things they like doesn't mean that such reasoning is illogical per se. Reason is the method by which we understand things, including our own animal emotions and instincts. What makes...