Did you carry on? It might not have been too crucial, it doesn't say that it should still be covered in greaseproof paper...
ETA: And was that a typo in the original? Should it have been "geasproof paper"?
Last edited:
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Did you carry on? It might not have been too crucial, it doesn't say that it should still be covered in greaseproof paper...
ETA: And was that a typo in the original? Should it have been "geasproof paper"?
No worries. If I couldn't describe basic musical terms by now I'd be a little bit worried (5th Grade Theory of Music [AMEB], 6th Grade Singing [AMEB], 8th Grade Alto Saxophone [AMEB]). As for the other stuff - I imagine that I'll be asked about all of that on my end of semester exam, so I'd better know it.
I'm pretty sure sorites comes from the Greek word for 'heap' (i.e. when does the heap of sand become not a heap). It is either 'heap' or a similar word.
A more formal description of that paradox would be an argument where the premises are a number of material implications (p1, if p1 then p2, if p2 then p3, ...) that lead to a conclusion (p'n') whereby the premises all seem true, but the conclusion seems false.
And I concur - regardless of how this thread has travelled (I'm new to the thread by the way), if it produces posts such as yours, it has merit.
No worries. If I couldn't describe basic musical terms by now I'd be a little bit worried (5th Grade Theory of Music [AMEB], 6th Grade Singing [AMEB], 8th Grade Alto Saxophone [AMEB]). As for the other stuff - I imagine that I'll be asked about all of that on my end of semester exam, so I'd better know it.
I'm pretty sure sorites comes from the Greek word for 'heap' (i.e. when does the heap of sand become not a heap). It is either 'heap' or a similar word.
A more formal description of that paradox would be an argument where the premises are a number of material implications (p1, if p1 then p2, if p2 then p3, ...) that lead to a conclusion (p'n') whereby the premises all seem true, but the conclusion seems false.
And I concur - regardless of how this thread has travelled (I'm new to the thread by the way), if it produces posts such as yours, it has merit.
It is fairly important, as otherwise you probably won't be able to get it out of the tin.
Should I add that it is best to remove the greasproof paper before serving? No? OK I won't.
It doesn't need to be resistant to magical impulses, just oil or fat.
Good Morning, all. Like I said, I am quite busy these week and next.
I am going to streamline our arguments here as I simply do not have the time To tit for tat like I normally do.
I suggest taking the arguments from this place on, if I have missed summarizing an argument, please bring it to my attention
arguments on objective beauty/music
Since much of all of your philosophies are constructed in binary, this or that, true or false, all of you assume that things must be black or white, objective OR subjective. OS 012 relates a point of view where everything is BOTH objective and subjective in some sense.
Zoo, Mojo, and a few others are naturally arguing for beauty’s sole subjectivity in music. The arguments against me seem to focus on my usage of the word ‘harmony and syncopation’ used to describe music. Although I clarified my meaning, they unfortunately were trying to hold me to their misinterpretations to back up their arguments.
It doesn’t matter what we deconstruct music down to, either notes, tones, rythyms, harmonies, etc etc. Any musical phrase, any note played, has the potential for syncopation, harmony, etc etc. This structure is inherent in music. It doesn’t matter if nursery rhyme arrangements are in a single voicing or not, it’s irrelevant. Every piece of music has the full potential to become a vast tapestry of harmony and syncopation.
Harmony and pitch is an objectifiable and measurable component of music. It is naturally pleasant to the ear. A note or tone, sung in the human voice, is naturally beautiful, and distinguishable against all other sounds in our aural environment. Beauty is inherent in music because what music is deconstructed down to, it’s essence, regardless of what we can agree it is, is naturally pleasant to the ear. Music is found in all cultures, even though cultures may vary in how they arrange music, it is irrelevant. The arrangements of music are subjective to the artist or culture, yet the potential is the same in all music because all music shares the same essence.
We live in a world now where we take music for granted. Never in the history of humanity have we had such easy access to music. Music simply is not as ‘novel’ as it was before the advent of recorded media. We simply don’t have time to find beauty in music because we are overloaded with media. To say that a Beethoven composition holds no beauty in and of itself is simply irrational. If music is found to be beautiful, then how is it that other sounds are not found to be beautiful? If it is subjective, then how do we relate beauty to music and not to fart sounds?
I can sit at home after buying a new CD, and not find the music on the CD beautiful. Was that the music, or my mood at the time, or both? Perhaps later, I come to find the music on the CD beautiful. That is something I have discovered in the music, not myself. Musicality is intrinsic in music. We find musicality beautiful because it relates harmony.
I say that beauty is both objective and subjective, and the objective quality of beauty is found in symmetry, harmony, and balance, relative to the form of media which expresses it. Harmony, symmetry, and balance all share some essence in common, and all are completely objectifiable and measurable.
Symmetry is found throughout nature and is found beautiful not only in art, but in science. In the book ‘Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics’, the author states
I have posted a few links which even relate this scientifically or mathematically. A computer can predict when a human face will be found beautiful or average.
I have posted links which show the lines of beauty which are hidden from normal view, but which the artist is able to capture. The center line of the body is what defines a symmetrical physical structure, and the more aligned the body to this line, the more beautiful the body is found to be.
Any arguments which state objective beauty is not measurable are simply not paying attention. Any argument which tries to prove the existence of subjective beauty are irrelevant, as beauty is both an objective and subjective phenomenon, and are not in conflict.
Simply put, NONE of you have been able to show how symmetry, harmony, and balance are not objective, and thus none of your arguments against beauty's objective qualities can hold water.
To quote A Precise Meaning for Objective and Subjective in Value Theory by
Harold N. Lee: If beauty is wholly subjective, there is no need for one to listen carefully at a concert in order to experience the beauty of the music. ...
I am not going to back track to previous rebuttals, all of which, to me, are simply rediculous and a waste of time, a boring tit for tat designed to make me wrong to protect your egos. Argue this post, refute symmetry and harmony as being objective, or concede.
I will summarize the other arguments later when I have time.
I am going to streamline our arguments here as I simply do not have the time To tit for tat like I normally do.
I suggest taking the arguments from this place on, if I have missed summarizing an argument, please bring it to my attention
arguments on objective beauty/music
Since much of all of your philosophies are constructed in binary, this or that, true or false, all of you assume that things must be black or white, objective OR subjective. OS 012 relates a point of view where everything is BOTH objective and subjective in some sense.
Zoo, Mojo, and a few others are naturally arguing for beauty’s sole subjectivity in music. The arguments against me seem to focus on my usage of the word ‘harmony and syncopation’ used to describe music. Although I clarified my meaning, they unfortunately were trying to hold me to their misinterpretations to back up their arguments.
It doesn’t matter what we deconstruct music down to, either notes, tones, rythyms, harmonies, etc etc. Any musical phrase, any note played, has the potential for syncopation, harmony, etc etc. This structure is inherent in music. It doesn’t matter if nursery rhyme arrangements are in a single voicing or not, it’s irrelevant. Every piece of music has the full potential to become a vast tapestry of harmony and syncopation.
Harmony and pitch is an objectifiable and measurable component of music. It is naturally pleasant to the ear. A note or tone, sung in the human voice, is naturally beautiful, and distinguishable against all other sounds in our aural environment. Beauty is inherent in music because what music is deconstructed down to, it’s essence, regardless of what we can agree it is, is naturally pleasant to the ear. Music is found in all cultures, even though cultures may vary in how they arrange music, it is irrelevant. The arrangements of music are subjective to the artist or culture, yet the potential is the same in all music because all music shares the same essence.
We live in a world now where we take music for granted. Never in the history of humanity have we had such easy access to music. Music simply is not as ‘novel’ as it was before the advent of recorded media. We simply don’t have time to find beauty in music because we are overloaded with media. To say that a Beethoven composition holds no beauty in and of itself is simply irrational. If music is found to be beautiful, then how is it that other sounds are not found to be beautiful? If it is subjective, then how do we relate beauty to music and not to fart sounds?
I can sit at home after buying a new CD, and not find the music on the CD beautiful. Was that the music, or my mood at the time, or both? Perhaps later, I come to find the music on the CD beautiful. That is something I have discovered in the music, not myself. Musicality is intrinsic in music. We find musicality beautiful because it relates harmony.
I say that beauty is both objective and subjective, and the objective quality of beauty is found in symmetry, harmony, and balance, relative to the form of media which expresses it. Harmony, symmetry, and balance all share some essence in common, and all are completely objectifiable and measurable.
Symmetry is found throughout nature and is found beautiful not only in art, but in science. In the book ‘Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics’, the author states
I have posted a few links which even relate this scientifically or mathematically. A computer can predict when a human face will be found beautiful or average.
I have posted links which show the lines of beauty which are hidden from normal view, but which the artist is able to capture. The center line of the body is what defines a symmetrical physical structure, and the more aligned the body to this line, the more beautiful the body is found to be.
Any arguments which state objective beauty is not measurable are simply not paying attention. Any argument which tries to prove the existence of subjective beauty are irrelevant, as beauty is both an objective and subjective phenomenon, and are not in conflict.
Simply put, NONE of you have been able to show how symmetry, harmony, and balance are not objective, and thus none of your arguments against beauty's objective qualities can hold water.
To quote A Precise Meaning for Objective and Subjective in Value Theory by
Harold N. Lee: If beauty is wholly subjective, there is no need for one to listen carefully at a concert in order to experience the beauty of the music. ...
I am not going to back track to previous rebuttals, all of which, to me, are simply rediculous and a waste of time, a boring tit for tat designed to make me wrong to protect your egos. Argue this post, refute symmetry and harmony as being objective, or concede.
I will summarize the other arguments later when I have time.
Last edited:
sinnikal
Muse
"Now then, all of you naughty children, play my way or I'm going to take my ball home with me and that means I've won. So there."
How predictable.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I guess this kind of summarizes my problem with this whole argument. I haven't followed this thread very much, but the parts I have seen seem to be a pigeon-holing effort on the part of the OP to break things into categories. Anything that doesn't fit one or the other category (true/false) is dumped into a third category (miscellaneous). Things like true/false, beautiful/ugly, etc. tend to fall along a continuum, rather than being strictly black/white (all those lovely shades of gray). I would see discussions of things such as beauty ranging on a scale of -1 (I don't like it at all) to 1 (I really like that), with 0 being a dividing point between "like" and "don't like". Some pieces of music are more compelling to me than others. Every person will have their own rating of the topic at hand, which will not necessarily correlate with mine.
This type of scaling can work with facts as well. For example (I think I saw this earlier in the thread):
1) The earth is flat.
2) The earth is round.
3) The earth is a squashed sphere.
Each of these concepts can fall along a less true/more true continuum. Any system that attempts to pigeon-hole ideas into a fixed number of categories is doomed to fail unless there are as many categories as there are observers plus things to be observed.
sinnikal
Muse
and again:
"Now then, all of you naughty children, play my way or I'm going to take my ball home with me and that means I've won. So there."
You see Bubb, you can be succint when you choose. 60 odd pages. Oh dear
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Wrong.
They are also focusing on the fact that not everyone has the same taste in music. If beauty in music was objective, it would be the same for all viewpoints, and everyone would have the same taste in music.
That is what "objective" means.
ETA: If beauty in music is objective, explain this.
Last edited:
Gnu Ordure
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 619
I'm just a member of the studio audience, hitherto intending to remain silent and just enjoy the show, but since you ask, z ....
I've found this thread interesting, informative, and amusing. It's been fascinating watching you all try to win the original argument by force of logic; the digressions and links into tangential areas such as the nature of beauty, the fundamentals of music, subjectivity vs objectivity, not to mention the vagaries of the London Underground system, have all been worth reading.
And all the personal stuff just adds grist to the mill.
What's not to like ?
(And on a personal note, any thread that absolutely requires me to spend a considerable amount of quality time pondering, calculating, and analysing the aesthetic qualities of Angelina Jolie, is OK by me).
So thanks to you all for putting on a good show; if it's coming to an end now, I do hope you manage to extricate yourselves from the quicksand of os012 dialectic with no permanent damage.
And thanks of course to bubblefish for providing the infrastructure within which the game has been played.
Great fun.
Gnu.
PS z, if this thread was meaninglesss, wouldn't the fact that it has persisted for 67 pages say as much about the participants as it would about bubblefish ? (Not to mention the studio audience.... )
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
So you admit its only real value is entertainment. Thank you.
As far as persisting for a mere 67 pages - that's a drop in the bucket around here. Check out some of the CT threads for a REAL page count! Besides, how many pages would it have been if Bub hadn't kept spamming his 'management/agency' notes?
Gnu Ordure
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 619
Steady on, z.
I didn't say that. I said :
The "informative" aspect is also a "real value". In the course of reading this thread, I have learned things, thanks to the contributions of a number of participants, (for which I thank them).
And for me, that makes the thread worth my while.
But even if you were right, and it was just entertainment, would that be such a bad thing ? I like entertainment. I enjoy being entertained. Is that wrong ? Or meaningless ?
Unless, of course, there's some JREF rule that I'm currently unaware of (I'm new here), that prohibits threads that are merely 'entertaining' ?
Gnu.
Last edited:
Actually, I can think of two beautifully succinct ways to rebut your claim that beauty in music is objective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first argument is as follows:
P1: An objective judgment does not require a personal judgement or evaluation. As such, an objective truth is a truth that can be recognised as true by everybody.
P2: If a judgment is not objective (i.e. - it requires a personal judgement) then it is subjective.
P3: If beauty in music is objective then everybody would recognise the same music as being beautiful.
P4: Not everybody recognises the same music as being beautiful.
CONC: Therefore, beauty in music is subjective and not objective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second argument is shorter and is as follows:
P1: Dissonance is by definition not pleasant for humans to hear.
P2: Some pieces of music that contain dissonance are considered beautiful.
CONC: Therefore, our definition of beauty cannot be defined by what is pleasant for humans to hear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first argument is the stronger case against your claims, while the second one is a weak but I think interesting argument about how we can or cannot define beauty.
I eagerly await your reply.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Another interesting debating technique: when Bubblefish's claim that beauty in music is objective runs into trouble, he introduces some erroneous ideas about the nature of music and then, when his errors are pointed out, complains that we are not addressing his claim that beauty in music is objective.
Introduction of red herrings seems to be fairly typical of Bubblefish's behaviour in this thread (note also how he steered the discussion away from OS 012 to his claim that beauty is objective, for example).
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
The portion in red is where he'll tear you up, friend. Remember, one of his chief arguments is that he employs a trivalent system of logic, where we are stuck in bivalency - dichotomy, if you will. In his rather silly mind, things can be both objective and subjective simultaneously (his 'third value') - just as things can be simultaneously true and false at the same time to him - or right and wrong at the same time to him.
So when we say that something which is subjective cannot be objective, he'll only sneer and say that we're stuck in a two-value logic system.
Of course, all this does is demonstrate how lacking in reason three-valued logic (as he applies it) really is. Basically, it gives us true-false-nonsense.
He's only going to keep redefining terms to try to be right anyway, so any attempt to show him that objective and subjective are mutually exclusive for a given phenomena will only result in him moving his goalposts and making up new definitions.
But it was a nice try, after all.
"Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth"
The reason I keep coming back to this is that if you cannot admit such a simple and obvious error in your statements, your intellectual honesty or your basic comprehension skills are in doubt. You cannot be expected to recognise the flaws in your statements when more complicated concepts are being discussed. It sometimes appears that you simply churn out words with no appreciation of what they are actually saying. E.g. "a false idea cannot be in conflict with a true idea." If you did not mean that, why did you say it? You owe me (another) $100.
But surely there's no point in you making your post without tit for tat, as we simply won't 'get it' otherwise? Or were you not being entirely truthful with us before?
It's nothing to do with binary, merely with the meanings of the words you are using. If you want to introduce new terms, fine, but don't appropriate words which have a clear meaning in this context and use them for something else.
Those are two distinct arguments; can you not handle more than one concept at a time?
I suspect this is mainly me; let me repeat once again. You did not 'clarify your meaning'. You simply used the wrong words in the first place, but will not admit it. You can have music without syncopation. You can have music without harmony. Therefore, harmony and syncopation are not essential for music. The fact that there are possibilities to introduce both of these is not relevant; they do not have to be there for music to exist.
The reason I keep coming back to this is that if you cannot admit such a simple and obvious error in your statements, your intellectual honesty or your basic comprehension skills are in doubt. You cannot be expected to recognise the flaws in your statements when more complicated concepts are being discussed. It sometimes appears that you simply churn out words with no appreciation of what they are actually saying. E.g. "a false idea cannot be in conflict with a true idea." If you did not mean that, why did you say it? You owe me (another) $100.
Thanks for the criticism, Z.
But while he seems to be promoting a trivalent system of logic (which isn't exactly a new idea), that isn't what I was responding to.
I was directly responding to his claim that beauty in music is objective. For him to now respond that beauty in music is neither objective nor subjective would mean that he has changed his claim - something he is welcome to do provided he doesn't then attack me using a strawman argument.
It is also worth noting that just because a trivalent logic system is used, not everything in the system needs to be unknown. You can deal with absolutes in a trivalent logic system just as easily as you can deal with them in a bivalent logic system. One would be hard pressed to argue for an unknown middle ground between objective and subjective.
...but it is his claim that beauty in music is objective.
Also, the definitions of subjective and objective have nothing to do with the number of values in a logic system. They are, by definition, antonyms and to suggest that something which is objective is also subjective would be a contradiction. In a way it would be a type of (p & ~p) argument.
Yes...I won't lie, I'm having trouble understanding just how he is trying to apply his three valued logic system...
Really...?
It will at the very least be interesting to see how he will argue the definitions of the words, provided he replies to me.
Thankyou.
Thought I'd give it a go.
But while he seems to be promoting a trivalent system of logic (which isn't exactly a new idea), that isn't what I was responding to.
I was directly responding to his claim that beauty in music is objective. For him to now respond that beauty in music is neither objective nor subjective would mean that he has changed his claim - something he is welcome to do provided he doesn't then attack me using a strawman argument.
It is also worth noting that just because a trivalent logic system is used, not everything in the system needs to be unknown. You can deal with absolutes in a trivalent logic system just as easily as you can deal with them in a bivalent logic system. One would be hard pressed to argue for an unknown middle ground between objective and subjective.
...but it is his claim that beauty in music is objective.
Also, the definitions of subjective and objective have nothing to do with the number of values in a logic system. They are, by definition, antonyms and to suggest that something which is objective is also subjective would be a contradiction. In a way it would be a type of (p & ~p) argument.
Yes...I won't lie, I'm having trouble understanding just how he is trying to apply his three valued logic system...
Really...?
It will at the very least be interesting to see how he will argue the definitions of the words, provided he replies to me.
Thankyou.
Thought I'd give it a go.