Just Do It

Post Reply New Topic

Such an extension is senseless and futile. All of those fields aim for some form of truth, not a subjective impression, but actual correspondence between facts and reality.

Doesn't really stand against what Vex stated though.

Whether art has PLAYED A ROLE in something, doesn't mean that art IS that thing. I mean, a sandwich has often played a part in the functioning of my body, but my body isn't a sandwich.

They generate one or another expression of truth, as they see it. It is all subjective and arbitrary.

Sure it does, it casts a much wider net than the one he was trying to apply.

I hope you actually aren't referring to me, because if you are, this is an utter misrepresentation of my position.


Nobody I know of holds this position. Art is not a matter of truth, nor does the goodness of art put anybody's life at risk. Do I want a trained and professional surgeon? Yes. Should I trust a trained and professional doctor's opinion over the local homeopath? Yes. Does this kind of reason tend to extend itself to any place where truth exists? Yes. I should respect an economist's opinion over the local conspiracy-theory gold bug. I should respect a philosopher above the local half-wit apologist? Yes.


This part is correct. After all, education on a topic means that a person has familiarity on it. Even further, the gifts of formal training also include refined methods and even refined intuitions. These both improve a person's ability to access truth.


That always depends on the nature of the collective. A pure democracy doesn't work. What is instead needed is a collective with an incentive structure for developing better opinions. It also depends on the education of members of the individual compared to the collective. If we have a single expert and a group of experts, then yes, we should trust the group of experts above the individual one.


Ok, but for matters relevant for truth, you do have to be humble enough to recognize who is better than you, and willing to learn from those betters.


Ok, but most amateurs never get close to the truth at all, and instead get stuck in all sorts of conspiracy theories. I mean, even if formal education does inculcate some wrong beliefs, this does not mean that the entire effort of engaging it is a waste.


Mind projection fallacy. http://www.ivorytowermetaphysics.com/?p=391 You are confusing the epistemological structure of your opponents with their ontological structure. No intelligent person is arguing that collective belief EQUALS truth. Instead, what is being argued is that collective belief is a MORE RELIABLE GUIDE to truth.

Even further, "democratic" makes no sense with your issue about point 2. If there are elites, it isn't a strict democracy. Instead, your opponents are clearly arguing for an ELITIST conception of truth, as they say that truth is not universally offered to all, but only to the elites.

Philologos:
Certain people feel strongly [this is collapsing several people most of whom nobody here has ever met, so do not feel pointed at unless you are specifically mentioned]:

AG:
I hope you actually aren't referring to me, because if you are, this is an utter misrepresentation of my position.

I think you can read. I think you have by now some idea of the probability of my lying through my teeth.

I HOPE you have realized that IF I were representing you I would say AG has said or AG appears to believe or such.

I try very hard not to misrepresent your position AND allow for misunderstanding as I wish you would consistently do in return.

Truth is subjective and arbitrary? Does that statement also refer to itself?

No, he never gave a net, and you never actually showed he was wrong. The best way to attempt is to use a poor interpretation of one the definitions. The problem is that this poor interpretation is a poor interpretation. Art still does not have the domains that relate to what we perceive as objective truth.

Philologos, I don't know of any human being who would put forward the opinion that you set forward. The closest I've seen is Bethie's bizarre need for words to only have one definition which is set by a central authority. I also have no idea of the inspiration. It seems like you are bizarrely misrepresenting somebody, which is why I had to clear up the air, as you did refer to me, and another poster also referred to me.

Truth may be objective. That's probably best left for another discussion. The descriptions that these various pursuits provide are largely subjective and arbitrary.

Um... ok? But all of these pursuits often openly pursue truths and/or factual claims. So, claims on taxes usually are rooted in claims about the effects of the policy, or perhaps even a moral claim. Art is not so much like this.

Art has played an effect in religion and politics.

That does not mean religion and politics are art.

If they actually exist, they should start a club in which they can meet with other poor definitions that are wrong non-sense.

But I'll byte, could you point me to the definitions of art that encompass religion, philosophy and politics?

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Jun 2011, 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Nobody will try to claim that poetry is not art, even if the content is based in fact. Tax policy is kind of like poetry. It mostly depends on the disposition of the person arguing for one kind or another. It's often the case that people that are equally smart, equally honest, with access to the same information, will wind up with wildly different stances.

As a professional artist and designer who has graduated from two schools, Pratt Institute and The School for Visual Arts, and as one who has operated in field for over 70 years, it seems to me I am qualified to state pretty much absolutely that formal training in art may or may not be a contribution to the quality of an artist but very frequently the basic abilities lie within the inherent qualities of the individual and may be supplemented by training but training is not always essential.This is one of the dumbest of many dumb discussions extended by Philologos but unfortunately it seems characteristic of his output. I am not trying to start a flame war but some things must be stated openly to clear the air.

OK Sand postulated nobody rational. You assume nobody human.

I assure you I have heard that from more than one person. though primarily from one, and we are talking rational human beings. And the one definition thing I fear in nothing new thoough of course they are both bizarre.


I have been around campus long enough I NEVER have to invent odd ideas.

Now I am asking for the last time before I give up on you, PLEASE do not accuse me of misrepresentation. I can be wrong. I am not wrong in this case, and I may filter or encode some things I say to you, but I do NOT lie.