What a wonderful world!

[Loke]

  So you are saying that arrivingg the time a mass murderer can have a good reason to do i t and that would be right cause is his point of view? look, i dont know if im being stubborn and if i am please tell me, but i still thing that there has to be universal rules for things like that.


yo yo yo

[melchiah131]

Her tits make a person wonderful

[Loke]

Her tits make a person wonderful

Hehehe well but thar reduces the wonderful people to half of the population



yo yo yo

[Sirius13]

... do you think this is aplicable to arts? what is good art and what is not?

yo yo yo

Hi Loke,
I do indeed think that this applies to arts of all kinds, and as an example of this just take a look at how the subjective opinion of what is good art changes not just from person to person, but also within the same person over time.

The things I considered to be the highest art when I was 17 were different by the time I was 23, and are different again now.  It's not that I was ever wrong, but just that different inspirations were relevant at different points in my life.

But still the important thing is to search for that inspirational work and to reach our own understandings relevant to ourselves... so whilst we maybe do not agree on whether there is a universal rule, it does not matter...  because in our own way we are both interested in arts and maybe even hold very similar values as to what makes art 'good'.  The search and discovery is a joy.

If there was a rule, then that would imply that if someone could 'decipher' that rule, then that person could tell me what to like.  I would never let someone try and tell me what is good art!    I am always happy to take recommendations and to discuss things, but to be told "no!! you're wrong, this is good!"  ...well, I couldn't accept that.  

If there is such a universal law of arts or morality or honour or any of these concepts, there is an important question to consider:
Who would we trust to tell us what that law is?

Because I believe that anyone who does try and tell you has instantly displayed that they are not necessarily to be trusted on that point at all...

Can I ask why it is important to you that there should be a universal law of this type?  I'd like to understand your perspective a little better.
Cheers!

[Nighthawk]

Right, a topic right up my alley. This is supposed to be my field of expertise.


...


*Supposed*.

So, 'ere we go.

My problem is that I just cannot define "good".

Feel proud. You share a common problem with every philosopher that has ever lived, from Plato, the self-righteous bastard, to whoever is The Man nowadays. What is good, not in terms of morality or the ever interesting dichotomy of good and evil, but in terms of quality, remains forever a subjective category. The Universal Rule, The Everapplying Standard that loke is trying to pinpoint is, in reality, the Rule of Society - what is considered good, acceptable and even decent is dictated by the ebbs and flows of the Great Social River. Point in question, dresses. One hundred years ago, a mini skirt would brand you for life. Nowadays, women of the opposite sex tend to walk half-naked through the streets, giving to the world a glimpse of the sky (to paraphrase Therion). Far from me to complain.

I caught all of your points of view and i think ill give a turn to this topic, now the q is, is there a universal standard for, honesty, good taste, etc i mean, there has some line that if you cross it is bad taste or good taste, there has to be limits, or everything is subjective?

Universal standards are another problem of philosophy. Pointless, in my opinion. The only universal thing, as Lucy pointed out, is change. Or, as Neal Peart said it:
(...) [C]hanges aren't permanent
But change is

And therein lies the Universal.

That would be kind of like trying to define when does an egg stop being a bunch of cells and become a baby...  there is never a "switch" point, there is just continual transition.

If there is only continual transition, at which point can we say we committed homicide? During the abortion or when we buy a pack of Durex Goodness?

Do you see what I'm getting at? We have to define a turning point. Even if that's not the exact moment, we, limited as we are, need boundaries. Our justice system (oh, a bitter play with words) needs boundaries. Our moral compass needs a North Pole. Continual Transition perverts the do-what-thou-wilt law.

Believe me, my friend, we are not dependent on outer ideas - our ideas depend on us.

Wee, apriorism be damned! I agree with Lucy and Kant (to an extent) on this one.

what is good art and what is not?

What is art?

If there is such a universal law of arts or morality or honour or any of these concepts, there is an important question to consider:
Who would we trust to tell us what that law is?

God. The or one of. I wouldn't trust a limited, human being to impose on me something so life-determining as a moral code. I'd want to hear it from God (big G, little g) himself.

Then again, I probably wouldn't trust the bugger, Him being an omnipotent being and probably with an agenda of his own.


But, considering the Christian ideal of God as the Higher Love... I'd trust Him, but only if He told me so himself.

But still the important thing is to search for that inspirational work and to reach our own understandings relevant to ourselves... so whilst we maybe do not agree on whether there is a universal rule, it does not matter...  because in our own way we are both interested in arts and maybe even hold very similar values as to what makes art 'good'.  The search and discovery is a joy.

Are you a partial agnostic?

So you are saying that arrivingg the time a mass murderer can have a good reason to do i t and that would be right cause is his point of view?

It would be right for him. The trouble would be in the society that probably wouldn't agree with him.

For the sake of argument, let's presume we agree that for one human being to take another human being's life is unacceptable. Furthermore, we agree that all such acts should be punished. We then agree to determine rules, or rather prophecies, that would tell all those who digress in such a way what would happen to them in hope they would refrain from killing. We formulate these rules (prophecies) and call them the law. We apply this law to our society.

We then see a wolf slaughter a sheep. We think to punish the wolf for digressing, but then realize we are out of the bounds of our society. The laws that we created to help govern our world turned to be inapplicable on someone from beyond our social sphere. The wolf, being an animal and, as such, not a human being, can kill a sheep, another wolf or just about anything without having other wolves come over to his den with a search warrant.

The wolf will be killed if he jeopardizes man, out of man's folly that he is too important to be jeopardized.

The rule that was universal for us turned out to be just a hollow scream to everyone else. Terms like good and evil, moral categories that define our existence, are absolutely meaningless once you step out of the confines of the City (and I use the term city as a gathering place for those bi-pedal buggers we're so fond of).

Once you step out of the boundaries of something, that something ceases to have the same meaning. You can't see London if you're standing in Trafalgar Square.


...


I'm not really sure how much sense that has outside my head. I'm a bit tired, so if I'm babbling incoherently, I apologize. I'll do my best to rephrase anything that's not clear... as soon as I get some sleep.

And what is honour, honesty or courage to the average rock or plant, planet or star?

Pretty much nothing, considering all but one of those isn't even alive.

But your point is conceded and agreed upon. Pretty much everything we bash our heads against, be that morality or the quality of good tea, is a human concept, meaningless outside the sphere.


Now, ontopic... A wonderful person? I *do* wonder what that person looks and acts like. I'd guess that'd be a person who tries to minimize his or her hypocrisy as much as possible. A sense of humour is always important, because if there's one thing I hate it's someone who can't take a joke. This sense of humour should be all-encompassing - the person would have to, if not realize, then at least feel that there is nothing you can't joke about and that life's too important to be taken seriously.

Yeah, and nice eyes and a good body and...


...


Yeah.

In all seriousness (ha! And I just said you can never be serious about anything), open-mindness is a cardinal quality.


A wonderful person... is a bit too much to ask. An okay person. Now that I could manage.



[everything said here is, of course, my opinion and my opinion only - as such, it's probably wrong]

[Elizabeth]

I'm afraid to say, you should't have given the wolf and sheep (how dare you kill one of my sisters?!) example. It kind of touched my weak point 

The wolf will be killed if he jeopardizes man, out of man's folly that he is too important to be jeopardized.

Agree. An attacked man will do anything to save his own life, will even kill the wolf if he can, and that's completely ok.

Buut. Who gives men the right to kill 3/4 of the wolf population on the planet? Excluding the man that was attacked above, and that would have a (very) vague reason for killing every wolf that crosses his path (that's already hunting), what determinates men to hunt? Some would answer "The danger those animal represent for humanity!". I partly agree. Well, yes, wolves, bears, tigers, etc, are a danger for humanity, but just under present circumstances of organized hunting and destroyed habitat. But then, birds are not a danger for humanity, and hounds still exist 
Other might say "instinct". Oookay. Aren't we supposed to be civilizied people? Plenty of murders are committed by instinct too.

On the art topic. A hunter might will surly call art the way he scared the beast, shot it, skinned it (and covered himself in blood, in the process), processed the skin and then hung it above the fireplace. I'd call that abyssmal idiotism and hypocrisy.

And no, I'm not a vegeterian. But I do love animals. All of them 

[Nighthawk]

I'm afraid to say, you should't have given the wolf and sheep (how dare you kill one of my sisters?!) example. It kind of touched my weak point 

No touching in that regard planned

Still, it *is* the most common analogy.

Buut. Who gives men the right to kill 3/4 of the wolf population on the planet?

If you're a Christian, God. Says so in the Bible.

Some would answer "The danger those animal represent for humanity!". I partly agree.

Well, yes, they do represent a danger... a cat is extremely dangerous if you hold it, press it against the floor and then step on its tail.

The claws... oh, sweet Shub-Niggurath, the claws.

I would go so far as to say that man represents a greater threat to humanity than any animal. Animals can kill one lil', two lil', three lil' human beings, but man can wipe out the entire planet tenfold in a blink of an eye. If we presume universal rules apply, animals should slaughter the lot of us just to be on the safe side.

Heck, they should slaughter us for slaughtering them.

Man is so infinitely small.

On the art topic. A hunter might will surly call art the way he scared the beast, shot it, skinned it (and covered himself in blood, in the process), processed the skin and then hung it above the fireplace. I'd call that abyssmal idiotism and hypocrisy.

One of the benefits of actually coming to class is getting a chance to define art (as we did on one occasion). I like the definition so much (for now, of course), that I use it on a daily basis.

Some Guy: 'Hey, how you doin'?'
Me: 'Art is that which is created by an artist (i.e. some guy) for the first time. Shoes created in a new design for the first time can, thus, also be considered art.'

I dunno, for now it's the best I can muster. Seeing as this is a subject dear to me, I'll probably have a better definition by the end of the month.

*egomaniacmode*

And no, I'm not a vegeterian. But I do love animals. All of them 

Ditto. My girlfriend *is* a vegetarian, but I never could not eat 'em. Being man and, as such, hypocritical, I use a special method in determining which animals I'll eat and which I'll pet. It's called the cuteness factor.

Thus, I only eat poultry, fish, pigs and sometimes those funny horned things that appeared on the cover of Atom Heart Mother. Still hypocritical, still divine in its two-faceness but it's the best I can manage.

So, yeah... I eat animals.

I'm sorry, but... man is so infinitely small.

I have moral issues while doing so... if that accounts to anything.


*sigh*


I'm a monster.

[Elizabeth]

No touching in that regard planned
Still, it *is* the most common analogy.

That was just a little joke regarding some people *cough* calling me "sheep".

If you're a Christian, God. Says so in the Bible.

I'am Jewish, actually.

Well, yes, they do represent a danger... a cat is extremely dangerous if you hold it, press it against the floor and then step on its tail.

That's eternal human stupidity. You don't wan't to be scratched, therefore you do not press a cat against the floor and then step on its tail. That simple 

Heck, they should slaughter us for slaughtering them.

Agree. 

[Nighthawk]

If you're a Christian, God. Says so in the Bible.

I'am Jewish, actually.

My apologies, I phrased it badly. What I should've said was 'If your religion in any way touches the [Old] Testament (in any case, the one with Abraham), God.'

I think that encompasses Judaism *and* Christianity

 

11:2. Say to the children of Israel:  These are the animals which you are to eat of all the living things of the earth.


The line is from Teh Old Testament - I'm accustomed to calling it that since I grew up in a religious Christian environment... which is not to say I ended up as a good product of such a society.

The line is an example of what I was referring to earlier. Who can tell us the moral code by which to live? A divine entity, because he is above all human matters. Hence, you've got the Ten Commandments - a moral code if I've ever seen one.

Who can tell us what we can eat? A divine entity.... so forth, so forth.


Just for the record, I'm an agnostic and by nature closer to atheism than theism. I'm looking at this from a purely logical perspective.

That's eternal human stupidity. You don't wan't to be scratched, therefore you do not press a cat against the floor and then step on its tail. That simple 

Explain that to man.

[Loke]

 im so glad to hear (read) so many points ofview in this, my search for the truth is my mission in life i would say, any way it appears to be no universaltruth but change.

I still think that guidelines have to exist and arts have to have some aswell, imagine a wrong note or an instrument none-tuned, that wouldnt be nice.

well keep posting friends im delighted with your p.o.v.


yo yo yo

[Markus]

Hi Loke,

the guidelines that exist are man-made, are created by consensus. Music is a great example, in fact: Intervals that sound disharmonic and bad to some people sound good to others. This depends on habit and on the culture one lives in.

Cheers!

Markus

[Nighthawk]

I still think that guidelines have to exist and arts have to have some aswell, imagine a wrong note or an instrument none-tuned, that wouldnt be nice.

I'm imagining it. Somehow, postmodernism comes to mind.


As Markus said, the guidelines are man-made.

[Sirius13]

That would be kind of like trying to define when does an egg stop being a bunch of cells and become a baby...  there is never a "switch" point, there is just continual transition.

If there is only continual transition, at which point can we say we committed homicide? During the abortion or when we buy a pack of Durex Goodness?

Do you see what I'm getting at? We have to define a turning point. Even if that's not the exact moment, we, limited as we are, need boundaries. Our justice system (oh, a bitter play with words) needs boundaries. Our moral compass needs a North Pole. Continual Transition perverts the do-what-thou-wilt law.

That's my point though - If a cut-off point is necessary (a human concept), then that point is determined by humans (and will no doubt vary from country to country, let alone from individual case to individual case).  There is no 'universal law' that can be applied, because outside of human perception there is no dividing line.

Whether morally a line is required to be drawn is a whole other thing, all I'm saying is that there is no natural 'boundary' to state where that line should be, so it's all subjective.

If there is such a universal law of arts or morality or honour or any of these concepts, there is an important question to consider:
Who would we trust to tell us what that law is?

God. The or one of. I wouldn't trust a limited, human being to impose on me something so life-determining as a moral code. I'd want to hear it from God (big G, little g) himself.

Then again, I probably wouldn't trust the bugger, Him being an omnipotent being and probably with an agenda of his own.


But, considering the Christian ideal of God as the Higher Love... I'd trust Him, but only if He told me so himself.

I of course accept your view point as being acceptable, because that's your view  .  My view is equally subjective (but different), I would only trust myself to define what is (for me) good art.  As you said above, I would no way trust god/s view even if he told me himself.  If he/they told me himself, I'd expect a decent god to be saying something along the lines of:  "It's chill man, YOU decide.  now have another beer."  (but I'd still watch him take a sip of his first).

With a grin I say to Loke:  Don't let anyone try and tell you what's good or bad art.  You reaction to art is as valid as anyone else's, how could it be any less? 

Are you a partial agnostic?

I'm an Undead follower of the higher Notessomes path 

A wonderful person... is a bit too much to ask. An okay person. Now that I could manage.

At the risk of adding too much cheese to the topic, I would say that a wonderful person is easy to find.  Just pick pretty much anyone at random and look deep. 

btw, Welcome Nighthawk! 

[Nighthawk]

So, basically, we completely agree

As you said above, I would no way trust god/s view even if he told me himself.  If he/they told me himself, I'd expect a decent god to be saying something along the lines of:  "It's chill man, YOU decide.  now have another beer."  (but I'd still watch him take a sip of his first).

This rates as one of the most heart-warming sentences I've ever read... that wasn't mine. *egotrip mode off*

My point exactly The only difference is, I took the longer, socratic route. Ohwell. What Sirius said.


The only part I disagree with is the cheese part, and not just because I'm a salad man myself. Well, mostly because I'm a salad man myself.

Still, I think there might be something to the cheese - I'm just too much of a misanthrope to accept it.


Hey. *waves*

[Markus]

My dear menu makers,

I can understand Hawk's objection to the cheese. In some people you'd have to look so very deep to find a wonderful person that you'd come out on the opposite side. (Mind you, of minds I speak!) But then again this idea seems like a good working hypothesis that will at least make those that apply it - well, a bit easier to take for wonderful or at least for decent.

I'll ask our goddess what she thinks of that, next time I see her for a glass of wine.

Cheers!

Markus

[Nighthawk]

In some people you'd have to look so very deep to find a wonderful person that you'd come out on the opposite side.

This reminds me of Einstein. To paraphrase the old bugger, some people are such bastards that they come out on the other side of the spectrum as wonderful human beings.

[Loke]

  It's wonderful to see wonderful people debating about wonderfulness (i hope that's even a noun hehe)


yo yo yo

[Sirius13]

@Markus & Nighthawk:  You are both, of course, completely right.   


I guess that to represent my true view I should have said:
"Just pick pretty much anyone at random and look deep.   ...except for complete worthless bastards.  Don't waste a thought on them." 


I wholeheartedly agree that my cheesy sentiment doesn't apply to everyone. 

But sometimes we can get a pleasant surprised where least expected, if we look with 'open' eyes...

 

[Markus]

Hey Sirius,

once more I'm so totally of the same opinion as you that I could sign your post immediately... if only you had written "surpriced" instead of "surprised". (This is a Therion-related forum, after all.) But besides that I fully agree.

Cheers!

Markus

[Loke]

@Markus & Nighthawk:  You are both, of course, completely right.   


I guess that to represent my true view I should have said:
"Just pick pretty much anyone at random and look deep.   ...except for complete worthless bastards.  Don't waste a thought on them." 


I wholeheartedly agree that my cheesy sentiment doesn't apply to everyone. 

But sometimes we can get a pleasant surprised where least expected, if we look with 'open' eyes...

 

Even those worthless bastards should have something goo within dont you think?


yo yo yo :O