nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (12/08/89)
> Now I'll make this promise: the _minute_ Jon admits that his > judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of his own taste, and > that he doesn't really have any concrete support for that judgement, > IED will make a pledge not to bother Love-Hounds again about Jon's > infantile musical bug-a-boos (not in so many words!); and I'll also > admit that I can be a bit hasty to flame when I see criticism of > Kate's work. *ANY* judgment of anyone's work is solely a result of one's own tatse, and can have no "concrete support" -- including judgment of the music of Madonna and Lionel Ritchie. Is this going to stop me from saying that Lionel Ritchie's music sucks. No way! I think that any intelligent listener has the ability to determine that any objective statement about inately subjective phenomena really indicates just a certain degree of strength of belief in the opinion. This can also clearly be seen in the notion that we even seem to believe that there are objective facts at all! For example, if I say "I am sitting in a red chair" (and I am indeed sitting in a red chair), we might agree that this is an objective fact. But it is really no more an objective fact than the statement "Lionel Ritchie's music sucks". It just so happens that because of the peculiar nature of the universe, the vast majority of the people in the would agree with the statement "I am sitting in a red chair" (if they were allowed to observe me while I made the assertion). The fact that almost everyone would agree with my statement leads me to a *very* strong conviction of its truth, which causes me to utter it in the form of a fact, rather than in the form of an opinion. But really it is no more provable than any other opinion. (Because no "proof" of this statement can disprove the hypothesis that we are just all being fooled by an evil demon.) There are no such things as "facts". Statements uttered in the form of a fact are really just very strongly held opinions. Thus I can say in good conscience that "Lionel Ritchie's music sucks" because I believe this statement just as strongly as the statement "I am sitting in a red chair". Thus I can also utter in good conscience the statement, "'Reaching Out' sucks" -- because it does. |>oug "K is for KATE who was struck with an axe"
henrik@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Larry DeLuca) (12/10/89)
> |>oug says (more or less): > "I am sitting in a red chair." This can be objectively proven. larry... sez: Hmmmm...this sounds pretty suspect to me. What about all the color-blind people? They'll think it's a green chair. What about those of us who shoot orthochromatic black-and-white film? We're going to see a *black* chair. C'mon, boys! Don't be so fuckin' vague! Let's have Pantone (TM) numbers here!!! larry...
nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (12/14/89)
> [Larry DeLuca:] |>oug says (more or less): > "I am sitting in a red chair." This can be objectively proven. I didn't say that "I am sitting in a red chair" can be objectively proven. I said that there are no such things as objective facts -- only things that people will agree or disagree on. The things everyone will agree on, we call "objective facts". The few people who won't agree on these "objective facts" we call "insane" or "colorblind" or what have you. But these "objective facts" are really no more "objective" than any other opinions -- they are just nearly universally held opinions. |>oug "L is for LEO who swallowed some tacks"