Historical enemies, controversy and crossing the line...

[hian]

The post to Prizmik, and my final reply to this "philosophical" salad of triteness,


is under the spoiler tag. It's huge as always, and so I've opted to put it under spoiler tags


to avoid offending people's eyes, and making the browser-bar unnecessarily small and cumbersome to use.


Anyways, have a good one, everyone, for this is my last serious input on this discussion.


TL;DR


Priznik suffers from a rare case of the philosophical disease known as "I am several hunder years to late".

Spoiler

Prizmik -
On respect, this is how it is used and is not incompatible with what you are saying.


Look, if someone says: "Ethnic group x is evil and aught to be exterminated",


let us say we respect this person for some reason, by your very own definition,


ignoring it would be doing contrary to what he wants,


which is to be reacted to.


Again, this is not how the term is used.


This is how -you- use it, and how you use it is not in accordance


with common definition, nor common usage.


And again, the point you fail to see here, is that the defining factor on whether concern


pertains to respect, is dependent on the wants and intentions of the person you're considering


responding to.


I have not made the argument that respecting someone means never being concerned with them -


you did however make the argument that not reacting to art, is disrespectful,


despite the fact that reacting to art can often also be disrespectful.


You now try to worm away from that fact by creating a strawman of the argument


and making trite examples in a vacuum to display how your logic can be justfiable in certain


limited instances, and for some reason, is therefore universal.


If you don't think it is, and you acknowledge that showing "respect" for art is contextual,


based on what the artist considers the purpose of his or her art to be,


then this entire discussion is pointless, and your replies are completely redundant,


as they seem to amount to the petty :


"yeah, I know, but..."-pleas of a petulant child.


Prizmik -


If we agree, maybe we will consider doing what he says, if we do not we will react by correcting.


So respect still predicates concern, if they are just saying I like apples,


then to take this as "the extermination" statement would be disrespectful,


obviously, I never implied otherwise.


Hence concern sometimes requires reacting in disconcern, but we still do it because we care.


And now you're conflating, and mixing terms. It's now, not "concern", but "care".


It's still a moot argument to make, because not caring is not the same as not respecting.


And at the end of the day, you still haven't addressed the patently obvious fact that art


is not entitled to respect to begin with.


Prizmik -


This is silly. I explicitly started my original comment to Tai_MT, by talking about Respect,


giving examples and counter examples to situations where respect is present and where it is not.


It would be the exact same as saying:


you do x if you want to get out of the woods, and you don't do x if you don't.


No you didn't. "If you want out of the woods blablabla", is a conditionally true statement, because it says that if you hold value X (getting out of the woods), you ought to do Y.


Your statement about respect on the other hand, says that by not reacting to art (especially by taking into account political/social perspectives) you are somehow disrespecting it.


That was not a conditional statement, but a straight forward descriptive claim.


You reaffirm this notion later in this very post. Stop being disingenuous.


Prizmik -


I fundamentally disagree that value is subjective, so the "everyone dies" scenario is mute.


This just goes to show that you don't see the point of the argument.


The "everyone dies" scenario is not dependent on value being subjective - it's an illustration,


an argument, for -why- value is subjective.


You "disagreeing" is not a counter-argument.


Subjective value is an obvious reality because value it's readily apparent that is subjectively held, can be different to


each subject, and changes over time, culture and species.


If you're going to reject this, you need to do more than just disgree, you need to actual provide an argument and evidence to the contrary.


So how about you attempt to make an argument for objective value, and see it fail like it has


in every meaningful philosophical discourse ever?


Prizmik -


I have to stop a large part of the conversation here.


Having read your reply I know your venomous attitude towards classical philosophy,


so it is not puzzling how you could find it difficult understanding


what I am saying in a post-metaphysical naturalistic context.


I am not finding it difficult to understand. I understand it just fine, and reject it as the antiquated


and non-sensical butchering of thought and intellectual tradition that it is.


There is a reason that classical philosophy is "classical" - because it's a historical artifact


of only nominal academic interest in terms of the history of the field, but little else -


and by that token, it is also large not part of any modern discussion on philosophy except as


reference points to hurry along a conversation, or among religious people/scholars, and other people with a vested interest in keeping alive the philosophical traditions that lend themselves to magical thinking, and pipe-dreams.


Going to classical philosophy to shape your world-view is like going to Freud and pre-Freudian


psychology to shape your view on the human mind, or to Darwin to inform yourself about evolution


I.E deeply problematic because it ignores the huge leaps in science and the human collective body of knowledge that has happened after, and informed later great thinkers and researches.


Your view on art is several centuries out of date.


Prizmik -


I hold to the representational theory of art, which is very much classical.


Thankfully, this will probably change as you actual start reading serious


philosophy more recent than the 16th cenutry, that isn't written by people with an obvious religious bias.


Prizmik -


I will just try to state my position,


since you are perplexed why I am arguing what I argue based on some of the things I say.


All art is representational, the less so the worse and false, the more so better and more true,


yes this is exclusionary.


That's not why I am perplexed. I am perplexed because you go to and fro making statements to the effect


"I am not making normative statements", or "I don't believe this pertains to all art", only


to then make statements like these, which betray that you hold to a universal and objective standard


for art appreciation, which would mean by extension, that every single opinion you hold about art


is both normative and applicable to all art, which is what I object to, and why this


conversation is taking place.


Prizmik -


Even though all art is representative, not all art pieces have political import, but some do.


When an art piece is political and is also false it warrants reaction up to censorship.


Correction - "Even though I think all art is representative..."


You have not made the argument that it is - and neither has the philosophical tradition pertaining


to this view.


Also, this is a normative statement, and it isn't qualified by appeal to value in order to justify it.


My response to this is :


"why is the "falsehood", and degree of "politicalness" of art, the standards for which to judge whether or not it warrants censorship?" and,


"does that take into account any of the general practical and philosophical concerns that exist about censorship in and of itself?".


Probably, you don't feel the need to qualify this because you see the value here as "self-evident" and "objective", and this in and of itself is a great irony - because simplistic notions like these have been deconstructed and criticized not only in more recent philosophical traditions, but in classical ones as well.


Throughout this exchange, you tip-toe around the issue by moving the goal-posts, by largely avoiding making clarifications of your positions, and avoid making arguments to support your assertions.


When you finally make "clarifications", they run counter the internal logic of your previous arguments,


and it's made apparent that any criticism you received was apt the first time around.


So, while, granted the nature of the PM you sent, I won't expect another reply,


I can imagine that if you do reply, it will be another derail, claiming I don't get your argument,


followed by a new argument, which is then later contradicted once you make another "clarifcation".


Prizmik -


My whole thing with censorship was, that if we make a blanket statement,


that no art can ever be censored we are acting like art does not have the capacity to be


political and dangerous.


No, we are not. As I pointed out in turn, this is vacuous and silly perspective


because it ignores


A.) That it's possible to be against censorship while at the same time considering art as having political/social- and even sometimes dangerous impact. These are not mutually exclusive stances.


B.) That the danger posed by any piece of art or media still has to be weighed in a cost-/benefit analyis against the dangers posed by censorship as a political initative due to the possible consequences that follows.


C.) That when it comes to art/media which isn't forced upon people, I fail to see (and you fail to argue) how it is constructive to argue for political ban of something which people can avoid by the simple act of self-censorship/selection,


which is less socially taxing, and protects individuals while also allowing for creative freedom.


This is like saying we should ban McDonalds (plenty of valid health-concerns against that company being around)


despite the fact that people can, if so convinced, simply stop going to McDonalds.


Prizmik -


Since unfortunately it is possible for works like Mein Kampf to rouse the masses to erroneous deeds,


it is not purely a hypothetical.


However, anyone with a modicum of education in history, sociology and the sciences of the mind,


can reasonably understand that works like "Mein Kampf" don't actual rouse the masses to erroneous deeds in a vacuum -


as is patently obvious when you consider that "Mein Kampf" is still widely and freely available on


the internet without making much of an impact at all in this day and age.


In the case of Nazism, the wide-spread beliefs and the social structure of that system was enabled by a vast network of different factors, ranging from socio-political ones, limited education, censorship of contradictory views and so forth.


When talking about the censorship of art for "the common good", it is always hypothetical because


unless you have some sort of magical formula for determining exactly how effects of art and media is going


to play out, you are just engaging in conjecture.


And this is why cries for censorship are belitteling in this day and age -


because it presupposes that even today, after events like WWII, many hundred years of social progress, improved public school


systems, the internet, and globalization, that most humans still won't recognize works like "Mein Kampf" for what they are (BS), or that these people don't feel confident that they can fight an ideological war with proponents of garbage like "Mein Kampf" without resorting to censorship, despite all the real negative consequences censorship has been shown to have cross-culturally,


regardless of place and time-period.


The effects of racist advocacy for instance, seems to be reducable without censorship,


but censorship seems to be inherently problematic regardless of what we do -


which is why I question pleas for censorhip as being inherently thoughtless and careless.


Prizmik -


And this is not tantamount to microwave ovens, since those are just tools and I will not try to


explain how they differ from descriptive and prescriptive statements.


You do really have trouble with analogies don't you?


The point here isn't that descriptive and prescriptive statements are the same -


but that even prescriptive statements don't just casually override people's larger frameworks of thought, and that even descriptive statements can be construed or misunderstood as being prescriptive.


If you're going to ban or censor something for "the common good", the fact remains that the standard of "the common good" is the standard with which you are making the argument, and the common good does not care nor take into account about whether something is prescriptive or not -


it is an inherently consequentialist sentiment.


Banning "Mein Kampf" because it can possibly poison minds, is no different than banning micro-waves because it can possible be used to kill children.


You can introduce prescription as a factor, and say


"we'll only ban things for the good of people, if the thing was intended for harm",


but this does not address the ambiguousness of discerning intent, and it also raises the question why the good of the people is only a concern when intent comes into play.


Let's say I write a book that is completely benign, but for some weird reason is misconstrued in such a way that it causes a genocide worse than that of the jews in WWII -


is that work then excempt from your censorship standard, and if so, why?


Prizmik -


For some unknown reason you seem to think that I see all art as being judged by its societal utility,


while utility may often follow it is not what I would ever judge it by,


it is by how true it is ultimately, just like a statement.


And why is its "truth" the standard you judge it by? You have made the argument over and over again, that the quality of art should be judged by its "truth", and how is that not an expression of art as utility? I.E art being a tool for expressing truth,


and truth as a value, being its usefulness to human society.


Prizmik -


If the art says "I like chocolate", that may still be true art, it is fine,


mostly useless to the public and that is okay.


Empty assertion.


You keep bringing up "use to the public", and yet you have the gall to ask the above question


about where I get the idea that you view art as being primairly about its social utility?


You try to weasel your way out of this by using token phrases like "it's fine" in


throwback paragraphs like this, but then phrase entire arguments around the idea


that "good art" is a certain way, and that not paying attention to a certain aspect


of art is direspectful, and destructive to art as a whole.


Exactly, how is anyone who actually manages to follow your argument supposed to take that?


Which is the truth?


You seriously need to stop, and structuralize your own thoughts - because either you are


A.) lying through your teeth in order to not "lose an argument", which I doubt, or


B.) you simply have no concept of what you actual believe or what those beliefs entail


because you haven't actually taken the necessecary amount of time to intro- and retrospect


about your views on this topic.


Prizmik -


Wrong, meaning is discovered through reflection, the discovering of meaning orients you,


as a rational animal into a participatory relation with the good.


That's not an argument. It's an assertion. It's also absurd. Are you making the argument that meaning is floating around in the ether somewhere for us to discover, as opposed to being something the human mind projects unto its surroundings through a serious of functions at the level of the brain?


Also, just as a caveat -


humans are not "rational animals" - we are "rationalizing animals". There is a big difference.


Prizmik -


We each speak from wildly different frameworks,


while I do believe we can find common ground and enrich each other in principle, this is not the place.


That probably won't happen, because you're working from an antiquated philosphical tomb made by people who lived without any concept of scientific methodlogy, scepticism, evidentialism, or the sciences of the mind, and without access to the vast body of knowledge that newer philosophy now has, and inquiries into the nature of reality based upon that knowledge, and as such, I think


further discussion on a topic like this, with you, is about as useful as having a discussion on religion with a person like William Lane Craig, or other peeple who think philosophical oddities like Ontological arguments make any sense what so ever.


Prizmik -


This is just bizarre. I am not doing what you are saying I am doing,


you even contradict yourself by rephrasing me.


Rephrasing something does not a contradiction make - it was done for the sake of simplicity


because it would be an unbearable pain to go looking through your entire post again


for the concrete statements.


Also, considering that you don't seem to understand what you yourself are arguing, as is


patently obvious by how your arguments contradict your "clarifications" - rephrasing


them in order seems to be the only way to show you why your arguments are bonkers.


If that looks bizarre to you, then that's a good thing. Those are your arguments you're looking at,


and they would look bizarre to most people.


Prizmik -


Art has the capacity to be political, there is no dichotomy.


Even though the capacity exists it is not always actual but rather only potential.


Thank you for conceding this.

This is so basic. If we say art is beyond censorship,


we treat it like there is no such capacity.

And you're back off the boat.


No, that does not follow. You're again making a bland and unfounded assertion.


You keep saying this, but nowhere do you actually argue it.


Saying that something is beyond censorship is not the same as saying something


does not have political potential. There is absolutely nothing at all tying


those two sentiments together.

Its not a marginal definition of censorship,


even different schools of philosophy use similar formulations, from Plato and classicism,


to some modern continental philosophy, like in Marcuse.

If that's the case, how about you provide a concrete example instead of just asserting it while name-dropping people.


I have seen nothing fron Plato, nor from Marcuse that says lack of care or dismisal of art is tantamount or similar to censorship.

Oh boy, well there is more hope for externalist epistemology than internalist,


and since you fashion yourself as an evidentialist, which is usually coupled with internalism,


we will not agree currently.

Not really - but that's irrelevant, and again shows that you have little to no idea what you're talking about when using philosophical


terminology. I already told you, stop butchering the subject.


I am not concerned with the topic of Externalism and Internalism, and I consider them largely unimportant, and mostly as


philosophical mental gymnastics.


In regard to those two ideas, I am a nominal compatibilist,


meaning that depending on what you take the two concepts to mean,


and depending on how you define the terms pertaining to the question of whether


justification is external or internal, I think it's a combination of both.


However, as I said, I mostly fall into the camp of thinking


the entire debate is meaningless and without consequence.


My basic idea of justification is that it is based on an interplay of human psychology (and biology)


with physical world around us. It is essentially internal, because humans can never truly know that


there even is a world around us (solipsism cannot truly be worked around in philosophy, only


ignored for convenience's sake), but we have no other choice but to assume that such is the case in order to be able to do or think anything at all.


After that fact though, we also notice that it is possible to formulate sound logical statements that are nevertheless false because the premises don't reflect what we observe about our external reality, meaning that we must still conform our views on the world in part, to the data we collect from that apparent external reality.


A justified belief is a belief that A.) Is logically consistent/sound, and B.) of which premises are "true", in the sense


that they conforms to the data derived what appears to be the physical world (or the constant we experience which we label as such, whatever that actually is), granted that such experience is consistent over time.


Why is this my standard? Because all other standards are meaningless. It's lterally the only paradigm that allows for us


to formulate coherent ideas and predictions about or condition, regardless of what the "true nature" of that condition actual is (exprience of an actual physical and external world, "brain in a vat" experiences, matrix, just a dream or whatever)


Evidentialism, for me, is nothing more than the framework for which to evaluate claims about


the (phyiscal) world in light of the above perspective. So, no cigar for you here either.

Your later comments on the free market are ridiculous and lack of sensitivity towards


artists is prodigious, but I at least know where it is coming from.

Care to demonstrate how they are, and why I am require to show sensitivity


towards grown adults who've chosen to go into a line of work that is completely


at the mercy of the tastes of other people, then complain when people don't want to buy


their ****?

When I say "value is normative" I mean that when you determine a value it is the norm,


it is the measure of things, as opposed to "my dog is a value to me".


You are right to say that is grammatically incorrect, I will strive to avoid it.

The right thing to say here would be "Normative statements about value" -


however, since you seem to realize that there is such a thing as non-normative statements


about value (and therefore subjective value statements),


I fail to realize how you think it's okay to make assertions about objective


value without arguing the case, and then dismiss the claim of value being subjective.

Neither of us is worthy of even handing Plato a pencil, at least I am fortunate to understand that.

I am sorry for your utter lack of confidence Personally, I don't think handing someone a pen is


something that requires worth, but then again, you were probably being hyperbolic.


This sentiment is laughable though - because it ignores the fact that despite the obvious contribution of Plato to the field of philosophy he was still a man limited by his time, and the even more obvious fact that we don't judge people as experts on everything, or above scruitny simply because they do one thing well.


Again, Plato was a great man and philosopher for his time - that does not make him perfect, nor


change the fact that much of his work is now neither accurate nor useful in contemporary philosophical discourse.


Dismissing Plato as a good source for informing a world-view granted the modern state of the field, is as I've already said, no different than pointing out that Freud is no longer a primary authority on Psychology, or that Darwin is no longer a primary authority on evolution. And even with that being said, we're not touching on the fact that both Darwin and Freud at least, were experts within


very specialized fields, as oppose to people like Plato, who were philosophers, and therefore


pretty much self-professed experts on "everything".


If you can't see this, you're truly a lost cause.

No but seriously, this must be the most laughable thing I have heard all week.


Read some Thomas Aquinas and drop that diamat rethoric, I mean seriously "historical trash can"? Haha.

lol. Thomas Aquinas. Seriously? Next you'll be naming William Lane Craig.


I'll re-read Thomas Aquinas the next time I have an erge to ram a needle through my eye, because


if I am going to self-harm, I might as well go for the maximum potential hurt.


You wouldn't by any chance happen to be Christian would you?

My first comment was about respect, that was meta.

Nope. Stop fishing. You're not using the term correctly.

Still it must be noted how consistently and reliably you failed to misunderstand me,


but this is probably because we are from wildly different traditions.

Oh I'm sorry I failed to "misunderstand" you.


I am not from "a tradition". I am a individual thinker, capable of forming my own world-view by taking what I conceive to be the high-points from various great thinkers and traditions while discarding others.


This "being from tradition X" in terms of philosophy, is sad entry/college-level quasi-intelligent position of people who fail to realize that you don't have swallow everything one (or a small group of) philosopher(s) said, hook, line and sinker, at the exclusion of everyone else.


Anyway - yes, perhaps it's time to stop now.


It certainly does not seem constructive to argue with a person who embraces your particular branch of philosophy.

 

[BlackLiquidSorrow]

Moving right along…

I find having something from one of humanities darker periods can be entertaining, provided it's used to create thought provoking discussions rather than intentional controversy.

On the other side of the spectrum, it can work in a comedic way provided you don't trivialize the people who died in those events. For example, Hitler is a recurring antagonist in my game.

He's effectively the Bloody Mary of the my game, if you say his name, he shows up. My game's setting is a physical manifestation of the internet. In the game, he's portrayed as a cartoonish

villain who spouts intentionally cheesy lines like "Curses, foiled again!"

 

[Tai_MT]

I think I'm going to abandon topic along with Hian here.  Every argument and statement made by the guy wildly changes direction and purpose and goals and he frantically contradicts himself when he's been caught in an argument that makes no sense.

I was going to read his last reply to me...  But, I can't for the life of me think it has anything interesting intellectually contained within.  I love me a good philosophy debate in the same way I love a good social or psychological debate.  It's great fun and can contain interesting nuggets of truth within.

However, the longer I engage in this argument, the more it seems like I'm arguing with one of those college kids.  You know the kind.  "Just took Psyche 101, now analyzes everyone he knows".  I train such dunces at work and it quickly wears me out.

What's the phrase? "Never argue with a fool, from a distance people can't tell the difference."