Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, sure, but can people realise that just because one challenges a position, that doesn't necessarily mean that one is advocating for its opposite?
Heh. Yeah, I am against absolutist stances (such as fascism, Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism), but reactions such as Sacha's are common.
In fact isn't that generally how conspiracy theories like Holocaust Denial fold? They always start with an appeal to relativism,
And I can see the appeal of that appeal. I have argued against absolutist dogma myself and been confronted with exactly that criticism: that I'm not tolerant of alternative views and ways of doing things. By the way, do 9/11 "truthers" have an equally valid view of those events as you and I?
All the "drag race" example shows is that you need a very tightly-defined context before you can make firm pronouncements about what "best" means.
It was suggested that a context was necessary, and I am saying that a context is often given. I'm not saying these issues are easy to resolve, but I don't think "well it's all just opinion in the end" is such a clever answer.
... this thread veered into such a yawnfest.
Thanks for contributing.
-
Clearly it's a subjective value that Fascism = bad (mmmkay?).
I don’t think it is clear that such a judgment is purely subjective. I’m not sure it makes sense to point out the mass of argument and evidence against fascism if you then still conclude that is only subjectively wrong. Also, it still seems to me your and Gio’s response (“Except for the very small detail that Fascism is predicated exactly on forbidding whole categories of people to have a say on what's right and wrong”) to 3410’s point amounts to an objective point against fascism.
But he can still tell you which is the best car for drag racing.
At the time he was interested in drag racing, yes. Not sure I'm understanding your point.
I didn't see the point in suggesting he might move on from interest in drag racing; it doesn’t refute anything in the argument. Which of the two cars is fastest over a short race in a straight line remains an object fact – actual best, regardless of anyone’s personal taste in cars.
-
Although perhaps the key difference is that the fascists wouldn't allow the debate to take place.
And they’d be wrong to do so? You seem to be saying that it is objectively true that the fascists are wrong
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm taking the piss. I'm really pleased you remember what I did there. It was a good gig but sadly I had a whole bunch of reasons for going.
Did you review 12 Monkeys while at the listener? If so, I remember that. It was of those reviews I read and thought: ”this helps me understand why I liked that film.” (If that wasn’t you – oops.)
Argument and conversation are what allow us to assign value to things, I dare say intersubjectively (I hope Danyl was sitting down just then), which is not the same as objectively.
So “intersubjectively” is not the same as “subjectively”. So what is the difference?:
- Is it: that people’s subjective views become more valuable as they become part of a consensus? Because I find that troubling, somehow. Or is it:
- People can apprehend that there are truths that hold beyond their personal values. If so, how is that not just ‘objectively”?(if humanity was suddenly annihilated, the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel would immediately cease to have any formal and aesthetic characteristics).
The Sistine Chapel would have exactly the same formal characteristics it has now. Are you saying those characteristics would not exist if there was no one around to perceive them? (If a tree falls in woods with no one around...) I doubt you really think that, though.
So sure, he's going to be able to tell you what the best car for a drag race is. But in a few years time he may not be all that interested in drag racing.
But he can still tell you which is the best car for drag racing.
In my defence, I think that pointing out that debate has stagnated to cheerleading is also worth doing sometimes. Perhaps people hadn't noticed.
Fair enough. I think something to keep in mind is that individual posters don’t always feel as if they’re repeating a point just because someone else has already said something similar about a given topic. Also, there was plenty of repetition on the “pro” responses, too, and it’s not like you were critical of both sides. Consider Matthew and Damian’s earlier comments suggesting, yet again, that we should just not take it so seriously, ya know?
-
Citizen Kane wouldn't be my desert island movie either. If I had to pick one, maybe Solaris .
Interesting choice. Without spending too much time dwelling on it, mine would be Red
So whether a film is 'good', or 'bad' is going to be contextually dependent.
Of course, but there often is a context (excepting if someone was expressing nothing more than a personal preference).
I guess 3410’s analogy of a saw was a little, err... blunt. But the example I think someone used in the morality thread is perhaps a bit clearer. Someone may be a car enthusiast, and have a favourite car. They may not have a specific reason, or they may have a set of reasons that ultimately add up to: it just is – it has that X-factor. That’s a preference; it’s the “best car” for him, but has no particular objective value.
But if he were given two cars to choose from, an economical and fairly roomy sedan and a drag racer, he could tell you which was one the best car for a drag race. And the best car would actually be the best car – it wouldn’t just be best in his opinion. Quality judgements are often subjective if you have no context, just preference. But things quickly become less subjective once a context is introduced, which I think is what Philip and 3410 might be getting at.In the case of movies, if someone says their favourite film is Avatar, that’s just a preference, and is totally subjective. However, if they were to say Avatar was the best film ever, because it is full of original science fictional ideas, they would be wrong - actually, objectively wrong. Heck, Avatar isn’t even that original by the criteria of “films James Cameron has made”, let alone by comparison with all other science fiction movies, or all other science fiction.
Children's books are a subset of books. Alice in Wonderland is a better children's book than The Da Vinci Code. But it's also arguably a better Book than The Da Vinci Code. I just don't think it's a conclusion that can be reached without, you know, arguing.
But what’s the point if it’s all subjective? Argument is for those who consider that you can use facts, evidence, logic and rationality to some purpose.
...any other candidates for finest century? I'm tempted to balance the odd bout of industrialised mass homicide with antibiotics, civil rights, reproductive freedom and plummetting infant mortality.
B Jones,
You might find this of interest, if you haven’t seen it already. -
Do you have to be such a victim about it?
Yeah, I thought that “desperate bitching” comment was pretty petulant, too. Poor baby.
Wait, that was Gio, right?
-
Was it actually that gorgeous, even? Ehhhh
Yeah, I was not especially impressed by the visuals, either. On the animation side, UP was a more visually impressive film. For traditional photography, I thought Inglourious Basterds was best.
Personally, I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels more than Avatar (which isn't to say I enjoyed them lots and lots, just more than Avatar...)
No they were awful.
Yeah, but so was Avatar. Choosing between these films is like doing a Harry Hutton poll: “You are a British fox. How would you most like to be killed?”
-
I thought different groups of academy members vote for different categories of award - so you get technical expertise where it counts (ie: recognition by peers) except for the best film awards that everyone has a say on. Do I have that wrong?
I think the different groups (actors, editors, DoPs etc) pick the nominees list for their area, but then the whole academy votes on the winner for each category. There are a few exceptions to that, but Best Cinematography, for example, would have been voted for by all the members, I believe.
-
...nowhere was it suggested that classical music is the only serious music...
The points about it being serious were both made in answer to questions along the lines of "Why is concert music so special/more deserving than other forms of music?" Geoff's inference was understandable (apart from misremembering it as "classical" when the word used was "concert").
-
I'd try harder if I were arguing for real.
No need to say so. If there was ever any doubt, it was obvious you weren’t really trying when one of your comebacks was that you could rent something for free.
Concerts are about serious music ... Music with something to say. You certainly don't want to be dragged out of it...
But that’s true of music that is not considered ‘concert’, and equally there’s some concert music that’s not particularly serious.
More than Midnight Youth or whatever they're called? I'd say so. More than Shihad? I'd say so. More than Smashproof? Lyrically? No. Musically? Hmmm.
Well, those are pretty average bands. Or at least, they average out to average. It’s early in Smashproof’s career, but they’re pretty meh, if it weren’t for that one song. Shihad are good but not life changing. Midnight Youth... well, let’s just say they bring the average down. Arcade Fire is a contemporary rock band that produces music better than many a contemporary classic, or otherwise “concert”, musical artist
The question is around whether that particular good outweighs others that could be delivered on the same dime. Sure it's questionable whether that's a fair trade off, whether other goods should/could come from other dimes. But that doesn't stop us asking the hypothetical question: What if it that was the only dime?
But as has been pointed out before, it’s not as if this is a “last dime” scenario; it’s not as if this is about whether a cut in funding for the Concert Programme will result in a commensurate increase in funding for contemporary dance.
This is the point some seem to be making here: that by raising this as if it’s some sort of “question that needs to be asked” or “Devil’s advocate” question, all we really do is play into the hands of the right. You’ll (theoretically) lose the concert programme – including its infrastructure – and gain nothing for your sister’s dance efforts.
-
I do not believe I have read anyone here arguing that RNZ Concert should be scrapped.
So you haven’t been reading Danyl’s posts?