Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:15 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:29 pm
VA wants it to be an a par with scientific facts. I don't think it is.

Strawman as usual.
I have never made the above claim.

Meaning it is objective in the same way. Not that it gets your same rating. Exactly as you go on below. Yes, you give it a different rating but you consider it as having the same kind of objectivity. Kind.

What I had said, whatever the FSERC [beauty in this case] it has to be contrasted with the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

If we index the scientific FSERC at 100/100, then I would rate [grounded on rationality] [best estimate] the Miss Universe FSERC at most 20/100 in term of credibility and objectivity because it is based on some empirical evidences.

For a theistic FSERC, I would rate [estimate] is relative credibility and objectivity at 0.1/100 because there is no empirical basis to it.

In all the above cases, there is objectivity based on intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects human-based FSERC within a continuum of objectivity.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:18 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:29 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:51 pm OK, but I'm arguing with someone who is saying that we determine objectivity through popularity - with beauty (and he uses the word beauty, not for example something more relational like 'attractive'. The point in that post is that I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who is attracted to what a majority consider less beautiful is wrong. I think that's a category error.

Someone who think trees are a type of canine is wrong.

Sure, but what if they just can't stand his music but love the best classical Indian composer. Are they wrong? If the world decides that Western Classical Music is the best, via FSERC which ends up being popularity, are the people who like their own culture's music more, less correct?

It's not 'Western' music. It's music. Thousands of years of musical evolution that culminated in the miracle that was JS Bach. It belongs to all humans.

That's lovely and I don't think I said anything about music not belonging to someone, but rather about their preferences. My point was that if we follow VA's logic, Indians who even vastly prefer different music could be considered wrong. Also, a study could prove that Bach was better than, sure, Taylor Swift, while another study could prove that her music was better than his. From your earlier post, comparing their sheet music, it seems you might think other criteria than popularity might decide whose music is better. Now Bach is so well know that he likely outsells Taylor Swift, but there are lesser known composers who do not and yet their music is also vastly more complicated than hers and meeting all sorts of criteria that hers does not. But in VAs world, objectivity is intersubjective agreement.

And, well, the other stuff I mentioned in my earlier post.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:20 am Viral Baby Pygmy Hippo Moo Deng: Scientists Break Down Her Pookie Appeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCssGyDeu90

The above objectification of Cuteness is the same as objectification of Beauty.
Both has an evolutionary basis.

..but that ain't cute.

I've never found hippos of woteva size 'cute' - they look like they'd make tasty burgers.

My dog is cute, probably the cutest dog in the Milky Way and the most gentle placid loving little rascal..ya, I love my dog. If he was ugly, I'd have sold him by now.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 3:41 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:15 am
Strawman as usual.
I have never made the above claim.

Meaning it is objective in the same way. Not that it gets your same rating. Exactly as you go on below. Yes, you give it a different rating but you consider it as having the same kind of objectivity. Kind.

What I had said, whatever the FSERC [beauty in this case] it has to be contrasted with the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

If we index the scientific FSERC at 100/100, then I would rate [grounded on rationality] [best estimate] the Miss Universe FSERC at most 20/100 in term of credibility and objectivity because it is based on some empirical evidences.

For a theistic FSERC, I would rate [estimate] is relative credibility and objectivity at 0.1/100 because there is no empirical basis to it.

In all the above cases, there is objectivity based on intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects human-based FSERC within a continuum of objectivity.

The Law of Excluded Middle as a logic principle is an evolutionary default to facilitate basic survival, i.e. fight or fight, enemies or friend, not-poison or poison and so on. This either black or white dichotomy is a very primitive mode of thinking whilst still useful to some degrees.

However, thinking on a continuum basis i.e. in shades of grey is a sort of more advanced thinking which could facilitate greater evolutionary progress in all human behaviors.
Thus my focus on objectivity [or other human variables] on a continuum basis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 3:54 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:18 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:29 pm

It's not 'Western' music. It's music. Thousands of years of musical evolution that culminated in the miracle that was JS Bach. It belongs to all humans.

That's lovely and I don't think I said anything about music not belonging to someone, but rather about their preferences. My point was that if we follow VA's logic, Indians who even vastly prefer different music could be considered wrong. Also, a study could prove that Bach was better than, sure, Taylor Swift, while another study could prove that her music was better than his. From your earlier post, comparing their sheet music, it seems you might think other criteria than popularity might decide whose music is better. Now Bach is so well know that he likely outsells Taylor Swift, but there are lesser known composers who do not and yet their music is also vastly more complicated than hers and meeting all sorts of criteria that hers does not. But in VAs world, objectivity is intersubjective agreement.

And, well, the other stuff I mentioned in my earlier post.

I studied Music Theory [layman basis].
Whilst there are vastly and diverse expressions of music within different cultures, there is objectivity [intersubjective agreement] in terms of harmony, chord and notes arrangements, being-in-tune, sound, rhythm, tempo, dynamics, melody, and texture, in all music of different types that are loved/liked by people of different cultures and social groups.

This fundamental of this objectivity is linked to its neural correlates in the brain.

Any music arrangement that is out of tune, pitchy, bad timing, and bad arrangements of notes & chords will trigger dislike, unpleasantness, disgust and even 'pain'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:20 am Viral Baby Pygmy Hippo Moo Deng: Scientists Break Down Her Pookie Appeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCssGyDeu90

The above objectification of Cuteness is the same as objectification of Beauty.
Both has an evolutionary basis.

Objectification
In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 6:57 am All baby animals are adorable. It's an evolutionary thing. I've seen your dog. Butt ugly.

accelafine wrote:

atto wrote: Er, hang on woman.

Are you trying to tell me, my dog Donnie is not THE most adorable loveable entity in the universe (after me of course).

Yes he looks adorable (but he might stink and have annoying habits), but everyone is not necessarily going to think that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:42 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 6:57 am All baby animals are adorable. It's an evolutionary thing. I've seen your dog. Butt ugly.

That hippo looked like something Ripley should point a flamethrower at...


PS. Am I the only honest person on this pathetic forum?

accelafine wrote:

atto wrote: Er, hang on woman.

Are you trying to tell me, my dog Donnie is not THE most adorable loveable entity in the universe (after me of course).

Yes he looks adorable (but he might stink and have annoying habits), but everyone is not necessarily going to think that.

..change yer mind did ya? Now that a hippos head reminds you of your own butt? (is that Y you get more bitter monthly?)

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:45 amDog owners are demented. Ok. It's a cute dog. Humans have bred them to be cute.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:56 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:45 amDog owners are demented. Ok. It's a cute dog. Humans have bred them to be cute.

I'll accept "demented" from others' POVs.

No, dogs were not bred to be 'cute' they were primarily bred to funtion to a purpose requirement.

Donnie has two working dog breeds in him - Retriever & Border Collie.

Retrievers would return fowl shot to the owner. Border Collies were from the BORDER of England and Scotland bred to round up sheep. They are presumed to be the most intelligent breed of dogs on the planet.

Thus, Europeans (being the more advanced form of human) bred animals for purpose. Other continents although to a degree, didn't seem to get as much out of what could have been their best friends - and some even put them on the MEN_U. (men knew 666) <-- that's that demented bit

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:56 am Europeans (being the more advanced form of human)

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:05 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:56 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:45 amDog owners are demented. Ok. It's a cute dog. Humans have bred them to be cute.

I'll accept "demented" from others' POVs.

No, dogs were not bred to be 'cute' they were primarily bred to funtion to a purpose requirement.

Donnie has two working dog breeds in him - Retriever & Border Collie.

Retrievers would return fowl shot to the owner. Border Collies were from the BORDER of England and Scotland bred to round up sheep. They are presumed to be the most intelligent breed of dogs on the planet.

Thus, Europeans (being the more advanced form of human) bred animals for purpose. Other continents although to a degree, didn't seem to get as much out of what could have been their best friends - and some even put them on the MEN_U. (men knew 666) <-- that's that demented bit

Dogs that look cute and permanently like puppies were bred that way deliberately. I'm well aware that dogs are bred for certain tasks ffs!

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:10 am Like a red rag to a woke bull