A challenge for all you Tate (not the gallery) fans out there!

izzit dat da mini-skirt woz so tight dat yooz were walkin' like pengwin? innit boomshakkalakka anna pocketful o' cheeze

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

*runs in with a gag*

I have absolutely no idea what is going on here

That's what lauren said when she realised she was alive.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Is it that pepsoid is the mostest unfunny person in the histree of abctales who thinks he is funny, though, get me?

No, it's that Catherine Tate is the most skull-crunchingly unfunny comedian to ever appear on TV and for some reason, Pepsoid and Yan are emulating one of her running jo... no, ske.... er, exchanges of dialogue.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Pepsoid embodies that Johnsonian witticism about the man who is not only dull but the cause of dullness in others. He is a humour sinkhole and his inane chuntering spreads like tribbles.

amma bovvered?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Oh... when you said you ran in with a gag Fish, i thought you meant you had something FUNNY

How disappointing.

Pepsoid. Could you not post such huge long thread titles? Youi are fucking up the format as well. It offends my aesthetic senses.

I love Catherine Tate. Off course, comedy is subjective. Which is why it's repugnant to see people using it as a reason to attack others. If you don't like Catherine Tate then feel free to express your subjective opinion but when you utilise it to display your own prejudice it's a tad revealing. ;)

jack - judging by the grandiose delusions that characterise the majority of your posts I'd be surprised if you found anything funny.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I have no idea who Catherine Tate is but after Yan's spirited defence I think I already hate her.

I dislike both Catherine Tate and any creation by Sacha Baron Cohen. Their form of 'humour' appeals to impressionable kids and Richard Madeley...I need say no more!

"Off course, comedy is subjective."

But Tate isn't comedy. She's Tesco Value Sketch-Show. Take any phrase - any at all - repeat until it's a catchphrase. If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny, if it was on TV and used to advertise Woolworths.

Jokes are funny. Have you tried these? Have you encountered them? Can you recognise them?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Take any phrase - any at all - repeat until it's a catchphrase'

I must admit I wouldn't find 'any phrase' humorous. "I think I'll take the dog for a walk" repeated isn't going to make me laugh and probably wouldn't score well on ratings. I'm not into catchphrases myself. You'll never hear me shouting "garlic bread?" because I think it humiliates people who don't appreciate that form of humour. You'd probably have to group Peter Kay and The Fast Show in with Tate as Tesco Value humour. So I take it you don't like those shows either? I'll let you in on Tesco Value goods, btw. I used to work at a company that made a certain tesco value goods alongside its internationally renowned products. The tesco value and the branded product were exactly the same but just different in cost.

Talking about dogs, you walk into any sainsbury's store and pick up a bag of 'Sainsbury's Scout Mixer' you'll be unaware that 'Asda Hero Mixer' is exactly the same product manufactured by the same company...but costs less in asda. Which says something about subjectivity in itself.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Depends on the product. A lot of Tesco value stuff is genuinely awful compared to its standard range. Try the lemonade, for instance.

Peter Kay is funny. I can't recall a single catchphrase of his - every episode of 'That Peter Kay Thing' was about a different set of characters and 'Phoenix Nights' didn't really have any repetitive lines either. The Fast Show was OK - funnier when I was younger.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

A whole section is devoted to Kay's 'catchphrases' at wikipedia - garlic bread being one of approx 20. I can recall 2 catchphrases used by Tate ("am I bothered and "how very dare you"). In fact, her programme relies very little on catchphrases.

'If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny'

I've never heard of a harmless comedy show being compared to watching another being repeatedly hit in the face, but things like this do create industries from demand so I suppose there may some entertainment value in it.

As I said, it's subjective. No need to launch an offensive on a guy just because he prefers a different 'form' of humour to you. And in fact we've probably just revealed that there really isn't much difference anyway.

You laugh at "Cheesecake" and peps laughs at "how very dare you". So what!

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Catherine Tate like her inspirations in Little Britain has misunderstood the difference between comedy and repititive nastiness.

I don't have a problem with nasty comedy - comedy with no pain element is unlikely to be funny at all - but both these shows simply encourage people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like, without taking the trouble to include any ideas or jokes.

In the old days, people on the margins of society were thrown in the stocks and pelted with rotten tomatoes - Tate, Walliams and the other guy are performing the same service for a mass audience.

It's tedious and unpleasant.

'If you find that funny, you're the kind of person who would probably find someone repeatedly being hit in the face funny'

Well that would depend largely on who the someone was?

In fact if it was someone hit repeatedly in the face by a fish that would describe my favourite monty python sketch.

Whenever someone dissmisses comedy as just nastiness etc. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Cruelty IS sometimes funny, and so is poking fun at the innocent. Personally I couldn't stand Absolutely Fabulous, all the characters annoyed me apart from saffy and all the jokes were lost on me, but enough people who's opinion I respect thought it was brilliant that I'm prepared to accept I'm in the wrong and it's my loss.

Comedy defies analysis. And has always famously done so. Dissmissing Little Britain is as 'simply encouraging people to laugh at crude caricatures' is meaningless and unfair, almost any great comedy could be dissmissed thus. Yes what Bukarinsbiggestfan said was true, but Little Britain also played cleverly on the differences between what the characters were and how they presented themselves, Lou wasn't dissabled, the biggest gay in the village wasn't gay etc. The goon show could be equally dissmissed as a mess of silly voices with a dash of light racism and no coherent plot, but it still cracks me up every time.

Again, it's purely subjective. Maybe it says more about the viewer's sense of humour when making comments like 'nasty comedy'. A fat person may sit there and laugh his flabby tits off at the weight watchers sketch because he/she has the inspiring ability to laugh at themselves. Would this person consider it nasty? If you were to remind a person that their frequent displays of pomposity were amusing, how would they react to that?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I don't think comedy is beyond analysis. Most jokes can be explained on some level. The most memorable ones are usually incisive in some way ie. they make the ludicrosity of something very apparent. Playing on what is expected/not expected by an audience also works. There's a good Goon Show joke about finding a pair of outboard motors in the boat and using them to row ashore. Even when comedy is being 'nasty', the nastiness is usually just adding a sort of cathartic edge to the joke - carthartic because in order for us to find it funny, we have to believe, on some level, that the target deserves this treatment. Stuff which targets wholly innocent victims can also be funny, but for different reasons - I think, perhaps, on a much more childish level - the humour of something that's simply outrageous. It's cartoon humour.

David's objection to Tate's characters is, I think, that they appeal to the part of us that wants to make comedy out of people we hate because it's easier to laugh at them than comprehend them. It's observational humour that requires a kind of ignorance to succeed.

There's a similar sort of thing that happens on the Internet all the time. When people get into tiffs online, they seem to invariably turn to pisspoor attempts at group comedy mocking.

"OMG - DeetEvans1 is such a tool I bet his mum is a toolbox."

"ROFL! HYSTERICAL! THAT IS SO TRUE! I SPILT MY COFFEE!"

Republicans try to tell jokes about Democrats, and the BNP try to crack jokes about Muslims. In each case, the joke may be bad or good (and is usually bad or non-existant) but it's more about the target.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I love Little Britain. I don't care if it's crass or pushes the envelope of grossness. Why does humour always require deep thought behind it? Why can't things just be funny (or not), and why on earth would you think it "simply encourage[s] people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like'? I don't know ANYONE remotely resembling Bubbles or Daffyd, and if I did I probably *would* laugh at them.

Ffs, lighten up.

But having said that, I find Catherine Tate painfully UNfunny. I've watched exactly two skits of one show, and had to turn it off.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

I agree with AG's... "Ffs, lighten up."

If you think something's funny, it's funny - nuff sed.

I like analysing comedy, but I also like what I like and laugh at things because they make me laugh, not because poignant-observation-A implies psychosocial-doodah-B.

I used to not like CT that much, because I did think her humour was too catchphrase-based. I'm not sure if one could say that this has changed much over time, but I actually now like CT despite the catchphrases. I'm so bored of Mr "How Very Dare You." and when Lauren goes off on her "bovvered-face-bovvered" tirade, I kind of switch off. For me, now, it's all about the characters. CT is brilliant at portraying characters. They are, granted, caricature-ish, but isn't that the essence of character-based comedy? I personally think she should veer away from the catchphrases and venture more into character-based territory, but maybe there is a concern there that she will cut off her core fanbase...

Did I say "character" too much there? Well anyway...

Lauren is a brilliant, real and funny character - how many times, on the bus or whatever, have I heard actual real people, teenage girls, who sound almost exactly like Lauren & her mates? Cracks me up, it does...

Anyway (again)...

Bovvered?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

"If you think something's funny, it's funny - nuff sed."

So you wouldn't object to racist jokes or paedophile jokes? It's true that you can't make something funny to someone by explaining it, but you can understand, to an extent, why people find certain things funny, and what the effects of that are. Weren't you complaining on the other thread about the dangers of comedy punishments for paedophiles?

You say, "I also like what I like and laugh at things because they make me laugh, not because poignant-observation-A implies psychosocial-doodah-B" and then go on to say "how many times, on the bus or whatever, have I heard actual real people, teenage girls, who sound almost exactly like Lauren & her mates? Cracks me up, it does."

Let "poignant-observation-A" equal "observation of, in peps' experience, of 'real teenage girls" and let "psychosocial-doodah-B" equal "peps doesn't think much of these sort of people" and you've literally contradicted yourself.

Here's part of the definition of Satire from the Devils' Dictionary:
"Satire, n. an obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humour that we mistake for it, like all humour, being tolerant and sympathetic."

I think there's 'nasty' comedy that is still, essentially, making fun of the human condition (even 'The Office' would fall into this category, since David Brent is still only painful to watch if we recognise ourselves in him) and 'nasty' comedy that enables a feeling of smug superiority. Maybe it's because I just can't see myself in the character of chav girls, but any comedy that takes the piss out of them seems to be trying to punch me playfully on the shoulder and say, "Gawd, some people, eh?"

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'So you wouldn't object to racist jokes or paedophile jokes?'

If someone finds a racist joke funny, they find it funny whether someone else objects to it or not.

"peps doesn't think much of these sort of people"

Who said that? You. Do you think comedy writers don't think much of these people? I'd find that hard to explain when Williams has co-written the gay sketches in Little Britain...hmmm

wiki entry on the appreciation of satire:-

Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic, including that heavy handed form of irony we call sarcasm, it is often misunderstood.

Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.

For instance at the time many people misunderstood Swift’s purpose – assuming it to be a serious recommendation of cannibalism.

Naïve critics of Mark Twain sometimes see Huckleberry Finn, as "racist" and offensive – when of course nothing whatever could be further from the truth - it is one of the most powerful anti-racist works ever written.

Some satirists have been known to deliberately use their victim’s incomprehension to enhance the satiric effect. For example, Steven Colbert recently aired a segment on his "Colbert Report" that purported to give Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem an opportunity to trumpet their new feminist radio program. He conducted the interview in a stage-set kitchen, at a pie-making table. Colbert played head chef and ordered the women about, while they played their parts as "sous-chefs." Both women left the set apparently unwounded by Colbert – presumably missing the point of his ironical behaviour.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Wiki editors aren't as sharp as Ambrose Bierce. It's a very poor attempt at a conclusive definition.

"Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance)..."

This is most likely written by narked off Chris Morris fans (I like Morris myself, but that doesn't enter into it). People who declare it 'just not funny' very often understand very well the intentions of the satire, but do not believe it justifies the approach. For instance, however stupid people were about the Brasseye paedophile special, I'm pretty sure most of them understood that it was taking the piss out of media and public hysteria. What they didn't like was that the target of the satire was they themselves, and that it involved making jokes about an issue they considered deadly serious.

I suppose these are the same kind of people who do misunderstand satire though, in that they attach the label of satire to material they feel entirely comfortable with, that mocks people they feel superior to. No genuine satire should leave you feeling entirely at ease and merely amused.

"If someone finds a racist joke funny, they find it funny whether someone else objects to it or not."

The point is that very often people will find a racist joke funny simply because it's racist. There is a strange compulsion in people to force themselves to side with anything that takes their point of view. Try signing up to any random online community, trolling about for a while, and seeing how many people guffaw whenever the most pitiful attempt at a joke is levelled at you. It's often the same with crap anti-Bush humour. I don't know whether, when people do this, they actually genuinely find it funny, or are just pretending, or a combination, but they simply *wouldn't* laugh if the target were not something they mean to oppose. This kind of humour is very dubious indeed. It's as far away from satire as you can get, and I don't accept a wussy 'oh, it's all subjective' defence.

Oh, and David Walliams isn't gay. Matt Lucas is.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'There is a strange compulsion in people to force themselves to side with anything that takes their point of view'

Don't we know it ^

'Wiki editors aren't as sharp as Ambrose Bierce. It's a very poor attempt at a conclusive definition.'

Who said it was conclusive? Again, you're appealing to objectivity to define a purely subjective experience, ie: comedy.

Comedy is an exaggerated caricature of personality, culture, politics, etc. There's a generally accepted but mostly unspoken consensus that it doesn't really mirror life to the extreme that it conveys.

'The point is that very often people will find a racist joke funny simply because it's racist.'

That's because alot of people are racist, Jack. Although, alot of jokes that are deemed to be racist are merely, as mentioned above, exaggerated caricatures of certain personality traits (which do tend to manifest themselves culturally).

Again, it's subjective - you have your opinion on good comedy, myself and others have theirs and to argue about it asif you're going to banish comedy you find revulsive from the minds of those who don't is futile.

Is it Matt Lucas? I don't follow Little Britain...but the principle remains.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Anyway...

I find Catherine Tate funny...

Mostly...

That's it really.

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

That IS it - really! ;)

Maybe if we'd agreed (for argument's sake) that we didn't find her funny then Jack wouldn't have had a strange compulsion to force himself to side with his own point of view.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Sometimes the sense of gravitas gets in the way of living.

"Whenever someone dissmisses comedy as just nastiness etc. it leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

I agree but my emphasis was on the 'just'. There's nothing wrong with nastiness in comedy - most comedy that I like does included some nastiness, a lot of it is much nastier than Little Britain - by my contention with the Little Britain school is that they don't do anything else.

"Dissmissing Little Britain is as 'simply encouraging people to laugh at crude caricatures' is meaningless and unfair, almost any great comedy could be dissmissed thus."

Well it's not meaningless, it's a description of what they do that you either agree, disagree with or think over-ridden by some other quality they possess.

Once again, I wasn't there was saying there's anything wrong with laughing at crude caricatures - that's the starting point of The Office, which I think is great - the problem is that as far as I can see, Little Britain doesn't develop beyond that.

"why on earth would you think it "simply encourage[s] people to laugh at crude caricatures of people they don't like'?"

Because it's a comedy show, it includes a series of crude caricatures and the people depicted are not sympathetic.

Are you arguing that it's not a comedy show, the characters are not caricatures or that many of them are portrayed as being nice people?

"David's objection to Tate's characters is, I think, that they appeal to the part of us that wants to make comedy out of people we hate because it's easier to laugh at them than comprehend them. It's observational humour that requires a kind of ignorance to succeed."

Well, broadly speaking I see Tate primarily as the provisional wing of the Daily Mail. But I think the Daily Mail is a lot funnier.

Tate's 'am I bovvered' character and LB's Vicky Pollard are absolutely foul stereotypes.

White working class girls are we're already derided by virtually everybody in the world for smoking, drinking, having babies, wearing jewellery, wearing clothes and talking before Tate and co got stuck into them.

They're derided for being content with who they are and derided even more for aspiring to anything better.

I think it's similar to Jim Davidson and co's approach to black people in the 1970s. Funnily enough working class young women are somewhat under-represented at the BBC.

AG: Sometimes the sense of gravitas gets in the way of living.

:-)
:-)
:-)

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

I put my tirade poorly I think. My only real problem is that when people object to comedy on moral grounds they tend to wrap their criticisms up in language that implies they think it is not funny, in fact I think they often convince themselves that it can not be funny because it is offensive.

Similarly, when people do not find things funny they do not want to be thought of as having no sense of humour and so tend to defend their opinion with moral arguments, that it is not funny because it is wrong.

Personally Ithink the two are entirely seperate. Funny is easy, it's what makes people laugh. What is right and wrong is, of course, a far more complex question.

Absolutely, maddan.

My personal thing about child abuse etc is, I admit, a subjective valuation of where the moral bounds of humour should be. I wouldn't be so presumptious as to say jokes on this subject matter can't be funny; I just don't, I suppose, "approve" of such jokes. Like I say, though, just a personal thing...

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

"Who said it was conclusive? Again, you're appealing to objectivity to define a purely subjective experience, ie: comedy."

It's *not* an entirely subjective experience, and to claim so is a pitiful defence.

Things are not necessarily funny just because some people claim to find them funny. If someone laughs at a funeral, that does not make the funeral funny. People laugh for different reasons, and some forms of 'comedy' exploit the fact that people will laugh to feel good about themselves, or as a method of attack, rather than because there is anything approaching humour in the content.

"That's because alot of people are racist, Jack."

Yes, Yan, yes. You're getting there. Now, extend the thinking. Racist people laugh at unfunny jokes because they're racist. That was my *example*, to illustrate the point that people will laugh at things that are not funny because they support a point of view or a prejudice that the 'joke' exploits. You *cannot* seriously be trying to defend this by saying that 'comedy is subjective' and that every kind of laughter is equally valid.

If you are, then let's see you maintain that philosophical position when someone mercilessly bullies someone you care about. Let's see you say, "It's OK - if they think that joke about my daughter's/wife's/friend's weight/appearance is hilarious, then let them have their fun."

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Nowt like a good game of Intellectual Tennis! :-)

Generally speaking, I’d agree with Yan re the subjectivity of humour. It’s like taste – you can’t really say someone has good taste or bad taste (or indeed no taste); taste is a purely subjective valuation. Same with humour. I don’t think there are innate, Platonic attributes that make a thing funny or not funny. One could probably analyse factors which, where they exist, render a thing more likely to be found funny; but I think, in pure terms, one cannot objectively state that a thing is funny or not funny.

A complicating factor, though, is personal honesty re a person’s subjective “sense” of humour. A person may claim they find something funny, for whatever reason, whereas actually they may only be saying they find it funny in order to appear “cool” or “politically correct” or whatever. It’s probably pretty impossible to differentiate between whether someone actually finds something funny and whether they just claim to find it funny – but in theory the crucial factor in whether something is actually subjectively funny is the true “sense” of the thing’s funniness (?) by it’s… erm… “experiencer” (the person who says they find it funny).

Another complicating factor is whether one, morally, ought to find something funny. JC said…

Let's see you say, "It's OK - if they think that joke about my daughter's/wife's/friend's weight/appearance is hilarious, then let them have their fun."

I have personally known (as have probably many others) people who do indeed adopt the kind of attitude Jack is referring to – i.e. that anything, any comment, can be “justified” if it is in the name of “humour.” I personally do not hold by this! And I find it intensely annoying when people do…

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

(PS. I still find Catherine Tate (mostly) funny)

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

'Racist people laugh at unfunny jokes because they're racist. '

There you again - 'unfunny'

Racist people laugh at racist jokes because they are racist.

If my mate tells a racist joke and I object he finds my objection funny and makes a joke about that. This makes for a good example of the 'type' of person who could find a racist joke funny. Personally I like black comedy. Some people enjoy comedy that plays males and females off each other - is that revulsive because it's sexist even if a show may be attended by and enjoyed by both male and female? Again, it's the ability to laugh at oneself also. Off course there are forms of humour that serve to defend a political ideal or ridicule another but it still doesn't mean that it's ultimately 'unfunny' - because-it's-subjective.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Here's a philosophical puzzle for you, Yan (or anyone else who fancies having a go)...

Under what circumstances, if any, do you think something could be labelled as being inately unfunny?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

Depends on how you perceive the environment, how 'moral' you are. Depends also on how mentally fit you are. Depressives won't find much funny in one world but in another where it's possible to cure despression they may find everything funny - even racist jokes. What ought to be unfunny? I don't think anything is innately unfunny unless there is a preconceived sense of humour, which there isn't.

There are also various ways in which a person may contemplate a joke. Let's see an example:-

There's a member of an ethnic minority who walks into an off license and approaches the counter. He/she casts their eye over the various bottles behind the counter assistant and says, "excuse me, could you recommend a port?" And the shop assistant replies, "yes! Dover!"

Now a racist person would find this funny because they're racist and it's a racist joke. Now I wouldn't find this funny because I'm not racist, but I would be amused at the various ways in which this joke may have originated. I could envisage a guy reading a newspaper and associating the word 'port' with the drink and with Dover and 'Dover' with immigration and putting the two together, formulating the joke and then passing it on. So I'm contemplating the circumstances of origin and finding that vaguely amusing but NOT the ultimate aim of the joke which I would find repulsive. If a joke finds its way into public awareness and is passed on between a large enough group of people then, as a meme, it has been accepted for a purpose and survives. There is a theory that laughter is a way of lessening the burden of flat instinctive drives, a way to release the desired chemicals and provide a temporory sense of security in an otherwise dangerous world. It's only a theory but it has implications as to how some may seek 'funny' situations as a means to an end, despite the mutual acception that it's an immoral joke. An person is aware that a racist joke is considered immoral but it doesn't prevent him from finding the joke amusing...for many reasons perhaps. It's the same as a vegetarian finding a meat eater immoral. It doesn't prevent a meat eater from enjoying eating meat.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

*resists*

this morning i vacuumed the hall

resistance is futile

lol.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

You know, I reckon the “port” joke does retain its funniness even without the racist connotations (that is, if the off licence customer is of no particular race) – but it doesn’t work on so many levels.

(is something necessarily funnier if it works on more than one level…?)

To respond to my own question (well you didn’t expect me not to have an opinion, did you?)… I think it would be easier to define something as being innately funny, rather than unfunny. If one accepted a definition of “funny” as being…

that which at least one person finds funny

… then some things could be said to innately and definitively funny. In fact, by this definition, probably virtually anything you could think of (an actual joke, an inanimate object or whatever) could be defined as being funny. So most of existence is funny! Which is, in some ways, an encouraging thought…

However, like most things in life (all things?), it is easier to prove that something is the case that it isn’t (how can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God does not exist…?). By my definition above, something is conversely unfunny if no one finds it funny. Okay, so one could probably demonstrate that no one presently and at this place finds a thing funny – but how could one demonstrate that no one will ever find that thing funny? I think it might be reasonable to say that such a thing would be impossible…

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

[[[ Does Pepsoid the sound of his own voice?

You decide…]]]

:-/

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

"Off course there are forms of humour that serve to defend a political ideal or ridicule another but it still doesn't mean that it's ultimately 'unfunny' - because-it's-subjective."

Nothing is entirely subjective. You need to get that through your skull pronto. Subjective/objective is a dichotomy with limited uses, as almost everything is a combination of both, and the 'everything is subjective' argument is a tired tract as infamously tedious in Internet forum history as comparing your opponent's view to that of Nazis.

"Now a racist person would find this funny because they're racist and it's a racist joke."

Not necessarily. A racist is, I'm sure, quite capable of appreciating it on the level that you appreciate it.

You seem to be arguing that the racist is an exception to a rule because he is a particular 'type' of person. Rubbish. If he can kind a racist joke 'funny' purely because it supports his prejudice, then you and others are quite capable of finding Catherine Tate characters funny for exactly the same reason.

"An person is aware that a racist joke is considered immoral but it doesn't prevent him from finding the joke amusing..."

There has to be a joke though. A joke is demonstratable. It isn't a private 'experience'. It can be explained. Explaining it won't make the joke funny to someone who doesn't get it, but it is possible to describe the mechanics of a joke, and if you can't, then you need to wonder if you're laughing at something that isn't a joke at all. "Hey fatty," isn't a joke (unless it could be demonstrated to have been used in an ironic context - say, if the addressee is rake-thin) but it can still make a bunch of people laugh. I'd posit that some of Tate's caricatures work along exactly the same lines.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

How do you define innate funniness when you cannot define innate unfunniness? How do you define sadness if you don't have happiness to compare it with? Which came first, the funny joke or the unfunny joke? haha

To connect to the previous thread about the 16 year old girl who had a faint electric impulse applied to her lobe and found everything delightfully funny when in normal circumstances, and to everyone present, it was a mudane and neutral environment regards level on the funny meter. A sterile environment you could say. Similar to marijuana...people wake up the next morning and wonder why the hell the cricket match on tv made them cry with laughter.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

'Nothing is entirely subjective'

In philosophy, subjectivity refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. They are unique to the person experiencing them, the qualia that are only available to that person's consciousness. Though certain parts of experience are objective and available to everyone, (such as the wavelength of a specific beam of light), others are only available to the person experiencing them (the quality of the color itself).

Jack, your perceptions derive from sensory input. You cannot share your perceptions with any other person so your entire worldview is a subjective experience. We can study the enviroment that we are perceive and are conscious of but only within the limits of our perceptions. Our sensory organs are limited to sensing only a very narrow model of our environment, e.g. Electromagnetic radiation. 'Nothing is entirely subjective' depends whether you have the ability to transcend your senses and see the 'all that is' of humour.

'A racist is, I'm sure, quite capable of appreciating it on the level that you appreciate it'

Off course they are.

"Hey fatty" would appeal to those people who find fat people funny. There are people who find fat people funny. To them fat people are a joke. There is no objective reality that defines mathematically whether a fat person is funny or not. Personally I'd consider it offensive and perceive that person as a bit of a twat but him and his mates may relish in the situation and deem the whole scenario as suitable comedy.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Before I continue, may I just refute any potential criticisms which may be levelled towards me regarding the apparent paradox of my agreeing with AG’s “sometimes the sense of gravitas gets in the way of living,” then going on to expound detailed arguments in respect of my views on the nature of humour? – to whit, I do believe that ultimately humour, on a personal level, is and should be about that instictual feeling one gets in one’s gut, and no amount of philosophising and intellectualising can or should dispel the pleasure that can arise from such. That said, the discourse to which I am partaking is one which I am partaking of out of a sense of pure philosophical enjoyment, and not the serious need to “make a point” – that said…

In response to some of the words of Mr Cade…

What is a “joke”? How does or can one define a “joke”? Is it possible to list a set of attritubes or to describe a linguistic equation to which a “joke” must concur? Answers on a postcard…

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

(PS. everything is subjective... Je pense, donc je suis...)

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

Double-post

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I know the theories of subjectivity. Again, they tend to be repeated ad infinitum when someone wishes to argue that 'everything is subjective'. The same sort of thinking leads people to conclude that nothing can be proved to be true, and ultimately to the theory that we could all be hooked up to some kind of apparatus somewhere and that our whole lives are not actually real.

Other than for making up cliched sci-fi stories though, this thinking is useless in philosophy and everywhere else. Objectivity exists insofar as it can be recognised and utilised by anyone making an argument - everything exists within an objective realm, and all humour can be objectively explained to the extent that the mechanics of jokes are often understandable.

""Hey fatty" would appeal to those people who find fat people funny."

Then following your argument, Tate appeals to people who find the working classes funny.

But I don't think it's as simple as that. People would laugh at "Hey fatty", whether or not they found fat people funny, if it was made in the spirit of ganging up. The laughter enables the participants to feel superior. Often, it isn't the remark they find funny at all, or the person. They just laugh because it makes them feel good.

There's a difference between humour and laughter. The second does not automatically follow the other. Things that cause people to laugh are not necessarily the things they're laughin at. Again, I would say that there's the real possibility that people laughing at Tate's character saying 'Am I bovvered?' are not laughing at Tate's skit, but at working class girls. And not because they find working class girls funny (they wouldn't laugh at them on the street) but because they're being encouraged to feel good about themselves in relation to those girls.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"What is a “joke”? How does or can one define a “joke”?"

What, so it doesn't have a dictionary definition now? No one knows what a joke is?

Look, don't involve yourself in arguments if the only contribution you can make is to try to question the existence of everything that pertains to the debate.

'Oh, but whose to say what is 'good' and what isn't?'
'Ah, but aren't we all prejudiced, so who's to say who's more prejudiced than the next?'
'Ah, but what is 'history'? How do we know if it isn't all faked?'

This sort of thing is utterly inane and just mires the debate in redefinitions of everything that we already understand. If you really think 'everything is subjective' then that might as well be your final word on everything. It's 'subjective' whether or not a child is a legitimate sexual partner, it's 'subjective' whether or not white races are superior. Just leave it at that and let everyone who believes in the objective continue to argue.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Oh, dear god, give the young man a handle to pull himself out of his arse, please! Give him some lightness, remove the blanket of seriousness he slaps on everything! I _beg_ you.

Jack, we'll have to agree to disagree because this is becoming tiring. If you can go away and work out a fundamental constant for 'humour' then I'll accept your argument for objectivity. So let's say that humour remains at present 99% subjective - the 1% granted to you for your efforts. Subject to change dependant upon your fundamental law for comedy.

In the meantime, to help you with your law, go into google and type in 'comedy is subjective' - view results. Now type in 'comedy isn't subjective' - view results. You could even try 'is comedy subjective?' - view results. This will give you a good starter for what the majority of people think comedy/humour/jokes, or whatever you want to call them, are.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

First of all…

:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)

And secondly…

Is it that we are all hooked up to some kind of apparatus somewhere and that our whole lives are not actually real, though?

;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)

And thirdly…

I do get your point re objectivity, Jack. My point, however (aside from the possibly flipant “everything is subjective”), is that subjectivty is the essence of what humour is. It’s at its core. Like I said, one’s “sense” of humour is very closely related to one’s “taste”; and I think, by definition, taste (and therefore humour – specifically whether or not something is “funny”) can not possibly, ultimately, be objectively defined.

And fourthly…

My “What is a joke?” was intended to spark the question of… well… what a joke is. It wasn’t meant rhetorically. I am genuinely curious to hear your (and others’) definition of what a joke is…!

And finally a few more…

:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

This thread was NOT funny.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"Give him some lightness, remove the blanket of seriousness he slaps on everything!"

If we accept comedy is subjective, then we accept that Dr. Jekyl is funny. Maybe even witty. You'd really take that line with it, Yan? You think you could live with the consequences?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I’m guessing that this thread must be an example of what Jack means by, ‘engaging in contentious activity.’ So, as dicking about on the other thread seems to imply I’m ‘content to let awful things happen in the world most of the time,’ I thought I’d better join in.

I don’t personally get the appeal of Lee Evans but when I see clips of him appearing in front of packed auditoriums, it’s obvious that other people find him hilarious. I don’t think they’re all pretending to find him funny. So, yes, of course humour is subjective. What a stupid argument. Just because there are some people who laugh at certain subject matter for dubious reasons, doesn’t mean that what appeals to you, in general, isn’t determined by your individual sense of humour. (I’m talking about comedy here, in the generally accepted sense not, say, funerals.)

I don’t like Little Britain. Imo, it relies too much on gross out jokes and cruelty. Not all of it, but too much of it. It’s also very lazy. I didn’t like the Fast Show because, bar Ted and Ralph, it struck me as a series of repetitive, catchphrase-based gags. Catherine Tate’s comedy is too repetitive for me also, although I did laugh at the grandmother character. That’s because she reminded me so accurately of an elderly relative (of whom I am very fond) who can be outrageously rude at times.

I find it odd that anyone would assume people found the teenagers in Catherine Tate funny due to class. (Being ‘working class’ isn’t funny in itself is it, or am I missing something?) The sketch takes the mick out of *teenagers*. It’s about their desperation to appear cool and to act, dress and speak like each other. The only sketch I’ve seen on CT that is having a dig at ‘class’ is the middle-class mother with 4x4 sketch.

Anyhow, semantics and straw men were the reason I couldn’t be arsed to join in this thread earlier. A point is refuted with, ah but ‘Tate’s not comedy’ (Oh ffs. what is it then? Drama?) But ‘everything’s subjective’ sparks off an infuriating Laruen-esque:

‘Are you saying everything’s subjective, Miss. Can anything be funny then, Miss? Is paedophilia funny, Miss? Are you a paedophile then, Miss?’

As I said, I find her repetitive, so was this thread.

~
www.fabulousmother.com

But is it that you are saying we are repeating ourselves, though?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

"So, yes, of course humour is subjective. What a stupid argument. "

If the second sentence reflects back on the first, then I agree. Your example just doesn't illustrate in any way that humour is subjective, just that different people find different things humorous. I tend to find that shoes that fit other people don't fit me. Oh my God! Shoes are subjective!

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Shoes? Oh for god's sake - here we go with the straw man again.

‘Your example just doesn't illustrate in any way that humour is subjective, just that different people find different things humorous.’

Object: the performance

Subject: the individual viewing the performance

Subject A finds the object funny according to their personal sense of humour. Subject B finds it unfunny according to their personal sense of humour.

I’m sorry, Jack, but please give me a rational explanation as to why that is *not* a definition of a subjective experience.

What *is* your definition of a subjective experience. Are we allowed to use that term at all? Or should we lobby to have it withdrawn from use?

~
www.fabulousmother.com

I _love_ you, 2Lou.

Save your love for your numerous lonely nights, Dr. Jackoff - one explanation coming right up.

As far as the term 'subjective experience' goes, in all honesty, it's a pretty useless phrase. Everything is a subjective experience. As Yan said earlier, nothing you experience is beyond your array of senses. So 'subjective experience' is pure tautology - experience is always subjective.

That doesn't mean that every point of contention is a matter of pure subjectivity though. Let's use your model to illustrate something else, 2Lou:

Object: the performance of George W. Bush as president of the USA.

Subject: the individual viewing the performance

Subject A finds the subject to have done a great job according to their personal assessment criteria.
Subject B finds the subject to be an asshole according to their personal assessment criteria.

Really, all I've changed from your model is the subject. In all matters, people carry different points of view that are informed by their prior experience. But no one goes round saying that the question of whether or not Bush is a good president is subjective.

Normally, when someone declares something 'subjective', whatever the technical meaning of the word, they are not simply saying that different people have different points of view - they are saying that no amount of reasoning and logic and communication can bridge the gap between two - that there is no grounds of mutual understanding possible. More importantly, they are trying to mute any argument that might take place. "Oh, it's all subjective anyway," is the clarion call of someone who can't be arsed to think, usually because the matter of debate (art, comedy, music) requires more application of intelligence than something as relatively simple as morality. In morality, for instance, killing an innocent person is never a good thing, and we at least have that as a starting point on which to build an explanation for our POV - in art, it is difficult to find a solid statement of truth to start from.

In this case, Yan's appeal to the 'everything is subjective' argument was also a reprimand to me for stating my opinion. Apparently, you're not allowed to say that something is 'unfunny' because, in the subjectivist world, nothing is 'funny' or 'unfunny' - you can only report on your personal reaction to it. So, you have to caveat every opinion with "For me...." or "I find...." You're not allowed to actually *believe* what you say is true. 'Good' or 'bad' gets the same treatment as 'funny' or 'unfunny'. You're not allowed, for instance, to believe that Dan Brown is a crap writer, because that's just your experience of it, and someone who thinks that he's a good writer simply has had a different experience. You're not allowed to believe that 'Pearl Harbour' is actually a crap film, or even that Leonard Cohen is actually a good songwriter. Believing in subjectivity is believing it's all in your head.

Rejecting subjectivism is something anyone with a serious interest in the arts (and let's include comedy in the arts) has to do in order to succeed. If critics didn't believe there was an objective ground, they would not write reviews. Because what would be the point telling someone about your experience when there's no way of determining whether or not they will have the same experience? Similarly, anyone who has written a good essay about literature, or any art, does so on the basis of faith in an objective reality. Hell, any artist who actually believes in what they're doing must believe, at the very least, in an objective measure of quality.

I guess, being writers, most people here would agree with me on that matter (ie. that quality writing isn't just subjective). It's comedy that's the bone of contention. But if you were comedians, you'd have the same attitude to that as you would to writing. In about the only decent scene in that awful film about Charlie Chaplin starring Robert Downey Junior, Chaplin explains, with great passion and lucidity, *why* the Tramp is funny, and why having him talk would not be funny.

Comedy is exactly like writing and any other art in that people cry "Subjective" simply because it is *difficult* to discuss it objectively. Not impossible, but difficult. People simply lack the tools to dissect these subjects the same way they do morality and politics.

I follow the argument - I even went along with it for some time - that if something is received differently in my head to someone else's, that must just be the way things are and there's nothing you can do about it. But it's a logic that can equally be applied to any subject. If 'funny' and 'unfunny' are not things that an object can be, only things which we experience, than the same can be said of 'disgusting' and 'not disgusting'. You could argue that if someone finds homosexuality 'disgusting', that's just their business and there's nothing you can do about it.

But the whole basis of progress rests on the belief that the subjective experience can be challenged - that communication allows us to actually influence each other's 'tastes' and opinions. Although we might not understand fully why people might find homosexuality 'disgusting' we can say that it's a stupid reaction and try to stop people from being that way. Similarly, if I think something is utterly unfunny - perhaps offensively unfunny - it is perfectly reasonable for me to seek to convince others that this is an objective truth. They, in return can, believing I have simply misunderstood something, seek to convince me that something is actually funny, even if that isn't my initial experience of it. I didn't find The Office funny at first. Now I do.

So saying something is 'subjective' might not be, in the strictest sense, untrue. It is simply a pointless thing to say because everything is subjective - objectivity is just a projected mutual understanding. What the person is really saying when they argue subjectvitiy is, 'I don't think it is possible to ever reach the bottom of this, or agree, or understand it as anything other than raw experience.'

In other words, subjectivism is simple defeatism, and lack of faith in people's ability to change each other through interaction.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

***Insert short putdown from Dr. Jekyl, the Gary Barlow of forum wisecracks, here***

After having read this thread, I fear I may never laugh again, even if I find something funny. In fact, especially if I find something funny.

Hm, yes. I might be reading you wrong, but isn't this is a similar reaction to what you get from prissy poets as soon as they encounter any form of analysis?

"Oh, you beast. You have ruined its beauty with your mean academic autopsy. Poetry is not supposed to be cut open and examined - it's a living thing!"

Or, to put it in the words of the current Literary Director of Arts Council, England, "Poetry cannot be defined - it is indescribable as the blood that runs in our veins."

Mm.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Gary Barlow is the sexiest of the Take That lineup, _especially_ in hot pants. _I_ don't wear them anymore.

_You_, Jacky petal, are still an overly grim, up-yer-own-arse wotsit. Do you ever get laid? Or does it require in-depth analysis before you get your tadger out?

Yeah, the thing is, however hard you try, I'm not going to be ashamed of the fact that I'm prepared to engage in tenacious and thorough debate wherever there are contentious viewpoints. Even if I don't change my mind, and am just reexamining, rethinking and reaffirming a point of view I already hold, it's always good brain exercise.

And, weirdly (or not) I can spend all that time writing a post and still have time to come up with better putdowns than "Do you ever get laid?" Weren't you the one who announced Brighteyes as my 'lover' on the other forum anyway?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

JC - Interesting viewpoint. I'm curious though, if I rejected subjectivity then what is it that makes me an individual? If I accept, like Plato and pals, that there is an objective truth and objective ethics and so on then how can one account for personal taste at all? A lack of willingness to see the truth?

If it is only a matter of me needing to see what's funny, then surely I'd agree with everyone on eveything -- if only people would tell me what part of the 'all that is funny [or whatever]' the comdey appeals to. Yet it doesn't seem to happen. Am I reading the wrong newspapers or summat?

Oh, minor point, but it occurs to me that If subjectivism is saying 'it's all in your head' then you wouldn't need to preface anything with 'I think' or 'I feel that...' because it would be implicit, no?

Objectvity can take us so far and no further. Critical reasoning is an extremely useful tool, but in the hierarchy of being of living, of waking from day to day or reading a book or *feeling* anything, it is below the Truth that every individual creates for themselves, within themselves, based on - yep - their perception of the world. And I would suggest this doesn't cloud their objectivity, rather, it benchmarks it.

Hope NaNo's giong well. I'm up to about 27k or so and starting to struggle (getting a nosebleed with a wordcount so high!)

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Poor peps, your thread has been completely usurped by the Platonian brigade! Are you bovvered?

Look at my face...

:-/

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

NaNo's the reason why I'm here so much at the moment! You're steaming ahead - I'm just hanging around at the right sort of wordcount at the mo. Every day I just about get there and then decide I need to not overstretch myself.

I do think subjectivity exists - you just can't declare a matter or subject as 'subjective'. Our experience of it is made of up a subjective and an objective part. Like I say, the subjectivist (and I'm using the term to describe someone whose opinion on a thing is that it is 'subjective') is not just saying that there is a subjective element to the thing discussed - they are denying that there is an objective element. Yan objected to my opinions on the basis that I was using objective criteria to discuss a subjective matter.

Part of the discourse over artforms is what exactly constitutes the objective element. It's easy to understand what is objective and subjective about experiencing, say, a sound, but it's far, far more complicated when you're talking about art because it's hard to demonstrate, scientifically, the existence of art. There's no way to prove art exists using scientific equipment, and yet it exists. If you say it exists purely in people's heads, then you're accepting that anything anyone thinks is art is art, that they can never be wrong, and yet art has continuously been approached as something that has an objective definition. We feel within our rights to point out that Dan Brown is an awful writer and that this is objective truth.

As another example, what about 'guilty pleasures' in music? This is music that the listener often accepts is bad, but that still gives them some degree of pleasure. There's clearly the understanding here that the quality of music can be objective as well as subjective, and that the two can conflict.

"If it is only a matter of me needing to see what's funny, then surely I'd agree with everyone on eveything..."

Well, no. Of course not. They have to convince you. The objective element of art isn't something you simply point out to people - it's a massively slippery set of conditions that's been tussled over for centuries. Where does subjectivity end and objectivity begin? That's not something you can answer easily, but it's a total copout - not a solution - to say that all we have is subjectivity.

"Oh, minor point, but it occurs to me that If subjectivism is saying 'it's all in your head' then you wouldn't need to preface anything with 'I think' or 'I feel that...' because it would be implicit, no?"

Well, you can be subjectivist about one thing and not another. Not many people are subjectivist about everything - Yan and the others clearly think that comedy is subjective, while morality isn't. So the subjectivisit needs the caveats to distinguish between when you are stating an opinion (on an issue that isn't subjective - merely controversial) and when you are reporting an experience.

I would argue that 'I think' and 'I feel that', in all cases, are fairly redundant, except as a way of softening the opinion you're putting forward, being diplomatic. Anyone writing a serious paper on a subject would not use such terms, because they're purely conversational. I've never read a review where the reviewer says, "I feel this is bad." They say it's bad.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Yan and the others clearly think that comedy is subjective, while morality isn't.'

I don't recall claiming that atall. You're putting words in my comments.

Nature is indifferent. But morality may have an objectivity if you consider morality from the perspective of self preservation (do unto others, etc.) This would have a natural benefit. But to give morality any firm objectivity then your're appealing to a transcendental agent who pre-determines morality and the argument breaks down because that is a purely subjective opinion. Newton's laws don't differ from continent to continent like morals do, in that case you have a distinction and a clear idea of what is truly objective.

'We feel within our rights to point out that Dan Brown is an awful writer and that this is objective truth.'

You have every 'right' to voice this opinion, but it is subjective. AGHHHHHH!!!!!! To claim it is an objective truth is a subjective opinion.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Face?
Bovvered?
Subjective?
Face?
Art?
Bovvered?
Objective?
Comedy?
Face?
Platonic Ideals?
Shoes?
Bovvered?
Face?
Gary Barlow?
Sexy?
Jackoff?
Bovvered?
Bush?
Boosh?
Bouff?
Bovvered?
Subjective?
Objective?
Face?
God?
Morals?
Ten Commandments?
Jesus?
Bovvered?
Buddha?
Bovvered?
Laugh?
Funny?
Unfunny?
Face?
Yan?
Pepsoid?
Jack?
Dr Jekyll?
…
I AIN’T…
…
…BOVVERED!!!!
…
…
(*ahem*)
…
…

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

I've only pushed ahead because I know I'll be missing a few days. It's my birthday on Friday and I'm not going to be writing that day or Saturday. The quality goes from bad to worse, though...

On this objective element thing, I have a couple of questions.

1. Is it objective because it is true, in and of itself, without 'eyes to see it' as it were?

2. How can I learn or 'be closer to' the objective element of art?

3. Morality is subjective. It happens that we agree to a standard for the sake of organising boundaries within society, but just because the law says it's bad, doesn't make it bad. Homosexuality was 'objectively' bad once, in the eyes of the law, the church, and almost all non-homosexuals. They'd say it was objectively bad. But many of us now say it isn't. So it turns out, it was subjective all along.

Sorry, that's more of a comment than a question.

4. Who has been most successful, in any artistic media, at captuiring that objective element? You asked: "Where does subjectivity end and objectivity begin?" If that is a valid question, if indeed there is indeed some kind of ratio, lets put aside defining it for a moment and give specific examples. If something is almost completely objetcively 'beautiful' or 'good' on this scale, then it is a thing that almost everyone will agree is beautiful, no?

NOTE: Writing at work. Had to be quick. Please forgive spelling and other errors.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Yes Jack, reading me totally wrong.

"You have every 'right' to voice this opinion, but it is subjective. AGHHHHHH!!!!!! To claim it is an objective truth is a subjective opinion."

I don't even know what you mean by 'subjective' anymore, yan, because you're trying to use it in so many different ways. When you say someone's opinion is 'subjective' you're saying that it is biased - that there is an ulterior motive guiding it - not that it 'refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences' (Wiki's definition of subjectivity in philosophy which you quoted me earlier).

Even if my opinion were subjective in this way, that *still* doesn't make the quality of Dan Brown's writing subjective and it doesn't make comedy subjective.

Just because two people have different opinions on something doesn't make the thing they have opinions about subjective. Subjectivity implies that all points of view are equally valid because it is entirely related to their private experience of the thing rather than any constant truth. Do you not understand the implications of this? If you say something is subjective, you are saying it is a matter of private experience only and that no one's opinion on it constitutes anything more than a data report on the contents of their heads.

You are saying that two people can debate the quality of Dan Brown's writing to kingdom come, and neither one will ever be any more right than the other. You are saying that as long as there is one fan of Gery Halliwell, she is as talented, in the realm of objective reality, as Bob Dylan.

I am trying to appeal to your common sense here, but I suspect that you will simply agree that these situations are the case. Understand that as someone who believes in good and bad art, I will never come round to your point of view.

Enzo:

"1. Is it objective because it is true, in and of itself, without 'eyes to see it' as it were?"

Well, according to Wiki, what is objective is the part of the experience that is 'available to everyone' and the example is a wavelength of a specific beam of light. What is subjective is the part that is only available to the person experiencing it. I think that broadly fits with your definition, yes.

"2. How can I learn or 'be closer to' the objective element of art?"

Quote from Kurt Vonnegut, quoting someone else: "How do you know if a painting is good? You look at thousands of paintings and then you know."

So, yes, you can. But it takes a lot of effort. I feel pretty sure, for instance, that having spent a few years now writing and reading poetry, I am far closer to its objective quality. I also know that something I would judge as being of excellent quality can still leave me cold, so I'm not belittling the subjective experience.

"3. Morality is subjective."

Nope, don't accept this. If you say morality is subjective, then you're saying it's as true that homosexuality is wrong as it is that it is right. In fact, you are arguing that nothing is 'wrong' or 'right' - it only seems that way.

You're also denying moral progress - if morality is subjective then people are no better now than they ever were, criminals are no worse than anyone else and no one becomes a better person. It's simply a jumble of subjective criteria with no rhyme or reason. It's a great way to baffle the Daily Mail, but as with art, all moral striving depends upon people's belief in the objectivity of morality - that things do not simply 'seem' right or wrong, depending on who you are - they *are* right or wrong,

The church and the people might have once proclaimed that 'objectively', homosexuality is wrong, but *they* were wrong.

"4. If something is almost completely objetcively 'beautiful' or 'good' on this scale, then it is a thing that almost everyone will agree is beautiful, no?"

Here's a fun point: I would say that beauty *is* almost entirely subjective. In the eye of the beholder. I think it does really only describe an experience, and I don't think any artist has really succeeded in creating or capturing 'beauty'. It's not something an object really possesses, but a kind of awe.

But the experience of beauty is a tricky one that I think is often used to describe an *appreciation* of something well constructed. So when a lot of critics agree that a piece of art is beautiful (not really a word they often use when trying to be objective) they are likely indicating their subjective reaction to an objective reality - the skilful way in which something is rendered. Someone like me would probably look at the same piece and recognise the same objective elements of a piece that cause people to find it beautiful, but it would instead merely make me feel admiration. Someone not very taken with art would not notice the at all, but that does mean that the degree of skill involved is subjective.

But 'good', as in 'good art'. Well. 'Good art' can be achieved in a number of ways and can, I think, be demonstrated to be good. Taking photography as a blunt example, people who don't know anything about photography might look at photos of flowers and think they're crap and that anyone could do it. The subjectivist says that their opinion of the photograph is of equal value to that of someone who maybe knows a lot more, and recognises the skill or talent which was required of the photographer in order to take that shot. The second observer is clearly and demonstratably better suited to judge the picture, but if you think art is subjective, then there is no 'judgement', and there is no 'skill', there is only the different experiences, both neither right nor wrong.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Oo, as an additional, I should point out that I don't like any Beatles songs, but am still hard-pressed to argue that they were a bad band. I might even have to admit, when pushed, that they're better than some of the bands I actually like.

From the subjectivist's point of view, this is impossible - the Beatles are good if I like them, bad if I don't. And yet, there it is.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

ffs

ffs yourself. Go back to your shitheap.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Goodness, a little touchy today, are we JC?

"The subjectivist says that their opinion of the photograph is of equal value to that of someone who maybe knows a lot more, and recognises the skill or talent which was required of the photographer in order to take that shot. "

I disagree. I would not say my opinion is of equal value to someone who knows more about it than I. I would say that my opinion is worth everything to me. I would say that my opinion is probably worth less to a third party than the expert.

If I talked with the expert: I would listen, I would perhaps be swayed by their explination, or perhaps not. When the conversation began, was happening and had finished, my opinion would still be the only one with value for me--but, and I want to emphasise this--CAN and IS be swayed by others precisely because it is not locked in time and 'objectivity' rather it is as fluid as it can be.Mine is always the one of value because it is adaptable to the views of people I take seriously, where appropriate.

"...but if you think art is subjective, then there is no 'judgement', and there is no 'skill', there is only the different experiences, both neither right nor wrong."

Yes there is judgement. Of course there is - my own! There is skill, for instance, someone could say "What's great about that picture is x, y and z" and I could say, "Do you know, I've never noticed that before!" and agree. There is right and wrong, but it exists only for the individual, in their own mind. But what is IN their mind is influenced by others.

I really see all that as self-evident.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

I *like* debating things that are important. I like debating them to death. Know why? Because I don't think I'm right about everything, and debate gives me the opportunity and an impetus to go over things thoroughly and really test my assumptions, my reasons for believing what I do, and my ability to articulate those beliefs.

I get sick of people who are uncomfortable with any kind of complex or long debate weighing in with pithy comments. If you're too lazy to consider a subject in any depth, by all means stick with your long-dead joke or talk about hot taps or something, but don't 'ffs' me for still having some time and energy left in my life, amid NaNoWriMo, a job, farting about and everything else, for big philosophical issues.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I don't have any trouble at all with complex or long debates about philosophy, Jack, and I find your thoughts on the matter interesting. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to say 'ffs' when I feel the debate has dwindled to hair-splittings, now, does it? No need to be such a grouch.

OK, I'm sorry, AG - I thought the Beatles example was a decent point, an example of an awareness of subjectivity and objectivity in music, and I thought the 'ffs' was a general reaction to my carrying on. That and the comment on the other thread narked me off.

Enzo:

"I disagree. I would not say my opinion is of equal value to someone who knows more about it than I."

But I don't think you're really a subjectivist, or if you are, you're not following the logic of that view. If you're proposing that something is subjective, then it follows that, however important your opinion may be to you personally, you're placing an equal value on it to anyone else's.

I don't really mean 'value' here as in how greatly that opinion figures in your life - of course your own opinion is going to be the one you pay most attention to - it's your filter for taking on boad other's opinions. What I mean by 'value' is more a sort of argumentative weight, related to the likelihood that there's is closer to an objective truth. (If I argue with an expert on something, I might try my best, but I am likely going to accept that his views are more informed than mine, and he is more likely, from the offset, to prove me wrong than I am him). If you don't believe in an objective truth, then, of course, no one's opinion is closer to it.

"Yes there is judgement. Of course there is - my own!"

But it isn't your judgement, so to speak. Judgement implies that you have weighed alternatives and decided on the one which is more correct. If you don't believe anyone is more correct than anyone else, then what you think of as judgement is more a case of choosing what suits you best.

"There is right and wrong, but it exists only for the individual, in their own mind."

That's not right and wrong though. The concepts can't exist as things that are relative only to individuals, otherwise we would have to accept that what is 'wrong' to us could be 'right' for others, and thus not wrong in any true way. Sexism is 'wrong' for us, but if it's 'right' for millions of Saudis, and it takes place in their country, well - their experience is as valid as ours, so why should we impose our idea that it's 'wrong' on them?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I think some of this comes down to using the same words to describe different things.

I would say my 'subjectivism' is simply the rejection of objective truth; that is to say: 'truth for all.' To me, what you describe as subjectivism here:

"however important your opinion may be to you personally, you're placing an equal value on it to anyone else's"

is not the same as what I'm trying to describe. In fact, you're describing something that resembles an 'objective subjectivism', in that your taking the value of one subjective outlook and applying the same value to all. That step - of standardisation, if you like - is an objectifying process.

What I'm saying is: There is only my subjectivism.

Turning to right and wrong, I would say that I act according to what I think is right, for the most part. I judge myself against what I think is right and feel guilty when I've done bad, and pleased with myself when I've done good.

Society seems to react similarly on many issues, which is good for me, although not coincidental, obviously- I have been naturalised into the society in which I live.

When you say that my right and wrong is not "right or wrong in any true way", I disagree, for the reasons above. If you mean not right and wrong in any *objective* way, then yes, you are correct. My values are not objective, because, again, my position is one that rejects objectivity. My values are my own - as influenced by...well, everything I've experienced and considered.

So back to the expert. Lets say in the broadest sense, he is telling me something I don't know. What I do is either reject it, incorporate it into my current world view, or accept it completely and reject my own previous views.

I'm finding this interesting, but AG has a point about semantics and I hope I haven't got caught up in that kind of thing is this post. I don't feel that I'm hair-splitting, but I may well be.

I'm not the best at expressing myself without having the person in front of me. Sorry about that.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Hmm. There is a degree of semantic misadventure here, certainly.

I may need to refer back to one of my friends, who has argued this subject much more vigorously and thoroughly than I have in the past (sometimes against me), but I think I'm right in saying that the subjective/objective dichotomy is a useless in analysing things if we regard commonality of human experience as being entirely in the realm of subjectivity. In other words, if you regard truth itself as subjective, then there is no objectivity, and the terms are meaningless.

Yan's argument seems to run along the lines that objectivity is only that which can be proved by scientific apparatus, but it's *us* who set up the conditions for scientific apparatus, based on our experience and understanding of how things work, so it again becomes part of an entire subjective realm. I could similarly build a computer program that told you whether or not something was art based on a series of criteria that you would enter, but the program requires a human's understanding of what art is for that machine to prove or disprove anything.

If you're going to have subjective/objective - and you need to have it for subjectivity to have any meaning - then the objective has to stand for truth, and the subjective has to be relegated to experience that cannot be relied upon for any kind of judgement.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Re "ffs" and subsequent comments pertaining thereto...

Many words can say at lot. Few words can say more. Who is the "better" artist, Monet or Rothko...?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

The value of the "all things are subjective" argument is...

Assurity of (the objectivity of) one's views can lead to fundamentalism, which can lead to violence, which can lead to terrorism and war. If all people accepted the possibility that, regarding their opinions, they may be wrong... would we not be one step closer to peace?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

JC- Yep, thought about it and agree with your conclusion as applied to what I'm expressing: the terms subjective / objective are rendered meaningless altogether.

I could probably go on for even longer about this, but I've probably gone on long enough.

For today, I'm aiming for 3,000 words of nanoing to get to 30k...so I'd best get on with it!

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

'Yan's argument seems to run along the lines that objectivity is only that which can be proved by scientific apparatus, but it's *us* who set up the conditions for scientific apparatus, based on our experience and understanding of how things work, so it again becomes part of an entire subjective realm'

Well if you follow quantum mechanics then that is precisely why we're experiencing an emergent paradigm shift as we speak. But we ventured down the rabbit hole objectively. We would never have discovered the veil over reality had we not. We're now venturing into the holographic principle and still using objectivity to speculate. We're now aware, through applying strictly objective procedures that the imperfect, forever evolving, human state cannot possibly tear open the veil - we're too restricted by our 'imperfections' during any one given increment. But it doesn't reduce reality to pure subjectivity. Even if we discover that base reality is nothing more than infinite potential energy dependant on actualisation by a conscious agent it has still been discovered objectively and can be validated.

'Everything is subjective' as an objective truth is self-refuting. same as: The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"If all people accepted the possibility that, regarding their opinions, they may be wrong... would we not be one step closer to peace?"

People can accept the possibility that they might be wrong without having to reject the idea of objective truth, Peps. I don't think going round believing that everything is ultimately subjective and not worth debating is going to help.

"We're now aware, through applying strictly objective procedures that the imperfect, forever evolving, human state cannot possibly tear open the veil..."

So basically, we're stuck in one big illusion? That doesn't really help when it comes to using subjective/objective as useful terms in anything outside of quantum physics. If anything can be said to be subjective, then it's a useless statement to say that comedy is subjective because it doesn't tell us how that comedy is different to anything else. We might as well say comedy is a thing.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

If all people accepted the fact that, regardless of their opinions, that I am right ... then we would pretty damn close to peace

If only Jesus had been so eloquent.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Yan: " 'Everything is subjective' as an objective truth is self-refuting."

... Perhaps... But what about "everything is subjective" as a subjective perception? Could it not be that we exist in an infinite loop of subjectivity, and that the entire universe (including ourselves) is intricately entwined within our subjectivity? (...***my brain hurts***...)

JC: "I don't think going round believing that everything is ultimately subjective and not worth debating is going to help."

If…
Statement A = “everything is ultimately subjective”
&…
Statement B = “everything is not worth debating”
Then…
A does not imply B…
More specifically, I did not intend to imply that A implies B! I believe there is still value in debating morals, the definition of comedy, etc, while possibly accepting that such things are entirely subjective. If only for intellectual exercise… and the possibility that such debate will improve one’s subjective individual impression of the universe (via consequent action based thereupon or otherwise)… and fun! :-)

(subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective subjective objective :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ )

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

But what about "everything is subjective" as a subjective perception?

All perception is subjective. Sensory input is not. You require sensory input to make a subjective perception. Sensory input has to be processed in order for perceptions to be formed. We all (plants and animals) suck in the energy around us and form a model for a universe. We use electromagnetic radiation to navigate, bats use FM and ultrasound waves (most do) to navigate and your electric fish in muddy water uses electricity. As I said previously, "everything is subjective" would have to be objectively confirmed. The subjectivity of jokes could be confirmed objectively by getting 120 people of same background, etc. and measure (hypothetically) their dopamine levels in response to the same joke. If you accept, without question, that everything is subjective then you're venturing into pathological science and risk deluding yourself. Joining up the dots to reach a predetermined conclusion.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"The subjectivity of jokes could be confirmed objectively by getting 120 people of same background, etc. and measure (hypothetically) their dopamine levels in response to the same joke."

Only if you believe that truth and knowledge are things that are only for science to decide, which is a very narrow view, convenient for scientists but disrespectful of centuries of moral progress and debate.

'Truth' is an objective thing. If you believe people can have different subjective truths, then that's the same as not believing in truth. The whole concept stems from the idea that it is something that is the same for everyone, or else we would not impose it or speak of it as something that we all have to recognise.

If you believe in any kind of truth in relation to morality or art, then you believe in an objective dimension to them. And yet morality and art are not things that exist without people - they cannot be measured with scientific apparatus. There is no equivalent of mitoclorians or dopamine levels that tell us how moral someone is.

Ergo, objectivity is not the same as 'that which exists without us'. It is not something that science alone proves or disproves, and not simply 'the sensory input'. That's the whole point in philosophy. People don't debate philosophy for kicks - they do it because they want to move towards an understanding of what is true.

Humour has an objective dimension. We can argue about whether or not something is 'funny'. We can argue that people who laugh at it are wrong to do so, just as we can argue that people who find homosexuality disgusting are wrong to do so. We can't say "You don't find homosexuality disgusting" but you can say "Homosexuality isn't disgusting" as a statement of fact. It's exactly the same with funny/unfunny.

So no, yan, the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed. Your experiement would only prove that there people experience a subjective reaction to them - it would not disprove the objective element. Sorry.

"If…
Statement A = “everything is ultimately subjective”
&…
Statement B = “everything is not worth debating”
Then…
A does not imply B…"

Yes, it does, Peps. If you say something is subjective, you're saying it can be different for everyone - that there is no truth, only different people's experiences. There is absolutely no worth in debating whose subjective experience is more 'correct' because we have no way of comparing them.

I think there's a 'beetle in a box' philosophical model that relates to this. It's clunky, but it might help you get your head round what I'm saying. Imagine a room full of people who have each possess a beetle in an opaque box. You can only look at your own beetle - not anyone else's. Now, without the aid of rulers, how do they decide who's beetle is biggest? This represents subjectivity.

Objectivity is when the beetles are in the room for everyone to see. Looking at them, they can decide collectively which beetle is biggest.

In other words, there is only a point in debating what is available to everyone, and what is available to everyone is objectivity, is truth.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Only if you believe that truth and knowledge are things that are only for science to decide, which is a very narrow view, convenient for scientists but disrespectful of centuries of moral progress and debate.'

It is moral progress and debate which led to science.

'Truth' is an objective thing.

Science never holds anything to be 'true' . It's a golden rule. A theory can either be strengthened or weakened...but never 'true'

'If you believe in any kind of truth in relation to morality or art, then you believe in an objective dimension to them.'

I believe in an objective dimension which could prove the subjectivity of art and morality but not an objective dimension for art or morality itself.

'Humour has an objective dimension. We can argue about whether or not something is 'funny'. We can argue that people who laugh at it are wrong to do so, just as we can argue that people who find homosexuality disgusting are wrong to do so. We can't say "You don't find homosexuality disgusting" but you can say "Homosexuality isn't disgusting" as a statement of fact. It's exactly the same with funny/unfunny.'

We can argue but that doesn't manifest an objective dimension.

'So no, yan, the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed.'

This has never been tested so your claim is subjective and open to further investigation.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"Science never holds anything to be 'true' . It's a golden rule. A theory can either be strengthened or weakened...but never 'true'"

And yet we believe truth to exist, and we pursue it. If science never holds anything to be "true" then that simply takes science out of the the game when we discuss objective truth.

"I believe in an objective dimension which could prove the subjectivity of art and morality but not an objective dimension for art or morality itself."

Then you don't believe in morality. Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong, truth and objectivity. Right and wrong cannot exist as subjectives. If something is right for one person, but wrong for another, then it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. Again, refer to the beetle in the box model. If people can only be aware of the size of their own beetle, they have no way of comparing it to the size of other beetles.

To put it another way, the very definition of morality is as something that transcends subjective beliefs. To believe in morals is to believe that some things are simply right, others wrong - not that how right or wrong they are depends on the observer.

I don't know how I can put this more plainly. 'Morality is subjective' is an absolute contradiction in terms.

"We can argue but that doesn't manifest an objective dimension."

We're arguing *about* the objective dimension - we're arguing as to what that objective dimension is. If we're arguing about it, we already assume its existence, otherwise we are again comparing beetles when neither of us can see the other's, and there is nothing to debate.

"This has never been tested so your claim is subjective and open to further investigation."

A 'claim' cannot be subjective at all. If I make a statement I hold to be true, it can be wrong, but it cannot be subjective. When I say "the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed" I am in no way reporting on a personal experience - I am stating that an objective reality exists.

You seriously need to revise your definitions.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'And yet we believe truth to exist, and we pursue it. If science never holds anything to be "true" then that simply takes science out of the the game when we discuss objective truth'

We're not discussing 'objective truth', we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity. We're dealing with probabilties. It appears to be the case that comedy is subjective.

'Then you don't believe in morality. Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong, truth and objectivity. Right and wrong cannot exist as subjectives. If something is right for one person, but wrong for another, then it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. Again, refer to the beetle in the box model. If people can only be aware of the size of their own beetle, they have no way of comparing it to the size of other beetles.'

Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong relative to a species...it has no objective reality. A vampire bat sometimes gives up its blood to its familiar nest mate because they strike a deal to ensure their mutual survival in times of scarcity. It's not a conscious decision discussed and agreed over a beer, it's a deal struck over time and is selected by nature due to its survival value. You could class morality as the same, but without the 'human' bells and whistles. In that sense morality could serve as a selected as favourable because it protects all concerned. Morality in itself (what's right and wrong) when applied as a transcendental, pre-determined concept is contrived nonsense.

You could agree on formulas for humour that become dependant on cultural/political/intellectual variables. You could agree on a formula for children (slapstick) and one for adults (satire, for example) but when all is said and done, at the end of the day, wat it all comes down to is the final appeal to a person's sense of humour - which cannot be formulated. Again, it depends on the subject.

Hyper-reality is a fluffy place...for fluffy bunnies

p.s. - I'm bowing out now - gonna browse for porn ;)

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Yan: "Hyper-reality is a fluffy place...for fluffy bunnies"

... I believe in a hyper-reality that is contained within the essence of the physical... What does that make me, Mr Yan? Hmm?

Yan: "gonna browse for porn"

... How was the porn?

~PEPS~

Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )...

"The Art of Flânerie"

'... I believe in a hyper-reality that is contained within the essence of the physical... What does that make me, Mr Yan? Hmm?'

I was referring to the human-centric world-within-a-world hyper-reality of civilisation where 'morality' tends to detach itself from nature and become all fluffy. Jack's reality is similar.

:)

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

So how was the porn?

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

(subjectively speaking)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

"I was referring to the human-centric world-within-a-world hyper-reality..."

You can either play lazy-ass, William Gibson-style, nihilist games of Nothing is True And We're All Just Dreaming, or you can accept that objectivity is truth is reality and that morality is an objective concept.

"Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong relative to a species...it has no objective reality. "

Doesn't follow at all, Yan. Just because something relies on a sentient social species to exist does not make it subjective.

Basically, you're taking the pseudo-scientists' view that objectivity stands for that which exists without anyone being there, without us. You also stated earlier that science holds nothing is proved to be true . As you're relying on science for your definitions of objectivity and subjectivity, you are also taking the position that we know nothing. So, in fact, you're own argument defeats itself. Nothing can be proved. Nothing is objective or subjective - there are simply 'most probables'.

Not only that, but these faffy definitions of subjectivity and objectivity do not distinguish between something that, in the reality of our species (if you must use that qualifier) is truth - something available to all us, that we should all recognise - and what is private, individual experience. They do not tell us what is personal taste, and what is not.

So when you say 'comedy is subjective', the phrase is meaningless. By your definitions, morality is subjective, facts do not exist, everything is subjective that doesn't also exist in the reality of bats. We're still in a situation where I can say "Catherine Tate is not funny" and this is as valid a proposition as saying "Murder is wrong". Telling me that this is my subjective reality is not a valid objection, because after all, if someone says, "You shouldn't kill that man" you can't counter with, "Morality is subjective."

But this is a waste of words anyway. Let objectivity stand for truth, and truth be that which is available to all of us, which we should all agree on, not that which scientific devices suggest is most probably 'reality'.

Catherine Tate is just not funny.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

*thinks she's developed a sudden crush on Jack*

'You can either play lazy-ass, William Gibson-style, nihilist games of Nothing is True And We're All Just Dreaming, or you can accept that objectivity is truth is reality and that morality is an objective concept'

Objectivity appears to be true...given the uncertainty prinicple. Morality is not an objective concept.

'Doesn't follow at all, Yan. Just because something relies on a sentient social species to exist does not make it subjective'

Again - we're venturing into the majestirium which lies outside objectivity - which makes it subjective.

'Basically, you're taking the pseudo-scientists' view that objectivity stands for that which exists without anyone being there, without us.'

I'm taking the psychological/neuroscientific/biological/quantum mechanic view that states that we can only define reality (the world of appearances) within our own limited senses - for now. The pseudoscientist joins the dots to reach a pre-determined conclusion - I follow what the experts of the field relay to me.

'They do not tell us what is personal taste, and what is not.'

Are you referring to subjectivity, Jack?

'But this is a waste of words anyway. Let objectivity stand for truth, and truth be that which is available to all of us, which we should all agree on, not that which scientific devices suggest is most probably 'reality'.'

Let objectivity stand for what it means, Jack - what appear to be true. Unless you want to re-define objectivity to suit your subjective worldview. Let objectivity stand for fundamental truth - which we should all agree on - fine! But not everyone agrees that Catherine Tate is "just not funny" ....

which makes it a subjective opinion ;)

Catherine Tate is just so funny! Objecitvely prove me wrong and I'll accept your argument.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"Let objectivity stand for what it means, Jack..."

Well, it means a different thing in philosophy, and in common language, to what it means in quantum physics, apparently. The meaning you have been putting on it is useless to us - you have been arguing that objectivity is not 'what appears to be true' (a phrase you've just come up with, and which contradicts what you've said previously) but what exists for bats as well as it does humans. This is the basis on which you argued morality was subjective was that it does not exist the same for other species. That's not the same as 'not appearing to be true'.

"But not everyone agrees that Catherine Tate is "just not funny" ....which makes it a subjective opinion ;)"

OK, you're being an idiot. Subjectivity is not just something that people don't agree on. You've shortcutted all the reason we've gone through and arrived back at this pathetic idea.

Objectivity is truth (or, if you like, what appears to be true). Right and wrong are objective concepts because we do not believe things are 'right' only for whoever sees them as 'right' - we believe they are right full stop, right in a way that everyone should recognise, that it is objective/true that they are right. So morality also relates to the objective. Your protestations to the contrary are utter nonsense.

It is also true that Catherine Tate is not funny. If people find her funny, they are wrong to do so, just as they are wrong to find homosexuality disgusting, just as they would be wrong to think killing someone is right.

You're also avoiding the beetle in the box model. Subjectivity is not something people can argue about, or even discuss. They cannot compare their beetles because no one can see each other's - they only have their own to go on. You simply cannot compare your private experience to another. So if you think morality is subjective, then you are saying it is impossible to debate. Of course, the reality is that morality is an objective idea, relating to truth - when we debate it, we are debating what is true, not mistakenly trying to compare our personal tastes.

So sure, we can argue about whether Tate is funny or not. But we'd not simply be comparing subjective impressions (which is impossible) - we'd be arguing over the objective - over what is true.

I don't need to make the argument that Tate isn't funny because David has already put it forward. If that doesn't convince you fine, but that doesn't make it a subjective matter. A racist is not convinced by all the arguments in the world that his race is not superior, but he cannot hide behind a curtain of subjectivism - he is simply wrong. So too are you when it comes to Catherine Tate.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"majestirium"... now there's a word!

What's the objective difference between a "scientist" and a "pseudo-scientist"?

***steps back and hides behind a big sturdy wall***

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

Well, a pseudo-scientist would be someone who acts or speaks as if they are using science or scientific terminology to support their views when their understanding of it is inadequate for the discussion. I didn't accuse yan of being one, but of holding views that I would expect of one.

Peps, you act like you're very confused. See if this helps:
Take the colour blue. Objectively, it is the wavelength of light, but our subjective experience is how 'blue' appears to us. We can talk about 'blue' and agree whether or not something is blue or not, but we can never actually explain to one another what 'blue' is to us, right? I mean, you might see a different colour to me when you look at a blue object, but how would we ever know?

That's what it means when something is subjective. It's that part of our experience that is only available to us. Now do you see why morality cannot be subjective?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I think it's whether or not one agrees with what they're saying, peps...

Jack, you were sounding very logical for awhile there, but you've stumbled into cockiness and ruined the show.

'So if you think morality is subjective, then you are saying it is impossible to debate. Of course, the reality is that morality is an objective idea, relating to truth - when we debate it, we are debating what is true, not mistakenly trying to compare our personal tastes.'

This is a semantical argument.

The *truth* is that morality is a cultural construct and therefore *very* subjective. I don't think Yan is saying it's impossible to debate; what he's saying is that consensus is reached only by those who can agree to a shared perspective on it. The fact that no-one on Earth can agree to the exact parameters of 'what' morality is, and the fact that morality (and humour, for that matter) change so often, are clear indications that they *reflect* subjective perspective, rather than embody some clearly-delineated truism. From a post-modernist view, there is no such thing as 'objectivity' when related to very subjective issues such as morality or humour; even our most objective observations are coloured by our own viewpoints. Science is perhaps able to embrace a certain amount of objectivity because they are seeking to prove/disprove theories via empirical investigation. But trying to reach some sort of objective observation on the merits/demerits of a comedienne is an exercise in futility: it's entirely personal.

This is getting silly.

Sorry, peps, wrong spelling...majesterium..that's better..:)

AG pretty much sums it up for me.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

"The *truth* is that morality is a cultural construct and therefore *very* subjective."

Therefore? No. That doesn't follow. Cultural constructs are not automatically subjective.

"I don't think Yan is saying it's impossible to debate; what he's saying is that consensus is reached only by those who can agree to a shared perspective on it."

If you believe morality is subjective, you either don't understand the meaning of subjectivity, or you're saying it is impossible to debate.

Look at it this way: objectivity, as Yan said, is what appears to be true, or, for simplicity's sake, what is true (as close to true as we can ever come).

If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are subjective. If right and wrong are subjective, then they only exist in different people's private realities, none of which are more true than any other. Ergo, the view of someone who believes murder is right is equally true to the view of someone who believes murder is wrong. It is impossible to debate which position is more valid, because both are entirely internalised realities that are not more true, or more right, than each other.

In short, if you believe morality is subjective, you do not believe anything is truly right or wrong. Since this is not the position of anyone here, it is likely the case that you do not understand what subjectivity is.

"From a post-modernist view, there is no such thing as 'objectivity' when related to very subjective issues such as morality or humour; even our most objective observations are coloured by our own viewpoints."

Well, any view that says there is no such thing as 'objectivity' is effectively destroying the words - there can be no 'subjective' without there being an 'objective'. Let me make the definition clear again: the objective is that which is available to all of us, eg. the specific wavelength of light that denotes a colour. The subjective is our particular private experience of that colour. It is difficult to understand what aspects of things like comedy and art relate to the objective and the subjective, but being 'coloured by our own viewpoints' does not mean there is no objective element to them - it simply means that our judgement is influenced by subjective reactions. Don't argue - that is *literally* what it means when we say someone's view is 'coloured' - that their view of the objective is 'tainted' by subjectivity.

This 'postmodernist' viewpoint you describe is basically one that says there is no such thing as truth. It's, as I keep saying, a lazy, slacker, nihilist viewpoint that attempts to circumventing the difficulty surrounding concepts such as truth and objectivity by claiming that they do not actually exist, in the process taking a great big dump on humanity's moral striving. If you say there is no such thing as objectivity, then the subtext is that there is no point in debating anything, because there is no truth you are aiming for and no one's view is more valid than another.

If you don't understand it this way, then you're going by a faulty understanding of subjectivity. Simple as. No subjective experience is more valid or more true than anyone else's, or can be proved as such. That's the nature of subjectivity. It does not simply refer to something that is influenced by personal experience, or something that people fundamentally disagree on - it is something that is available only to the person who is experiencing it.

Do you see? Does the beetle in the box model help? Subjective experience is having a beetle in a box that no one else can see and that you cannot measure with constants like rulers. You cannot possibly decide if your beetle is bigger than another person whose beetle you can't see.

Objectivity is when the beetles are in the room for everyone to see.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'In short, if you believe morality is subjective, you do not believe anything is truly right or wrong.'

No, no, no. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Feeling something is subjective does not automatically negate any type of opinion about morality; but one has to accept that there are always going to be differing views on the same thing. I *do* believe in 'right and wrong'; however, these are my subjective views. A member of the Taliban, say, has a much, much different view of right and wrong. Do I agree with his view? No. Would he agree with my view? No. Each of our views are shaped *by the culture from within which we are viewing the world*. See:

Subjective (def): Relating to, proceeding from, or taking place within an individual’s mind, emotions, etc. 2. Originating from or influenced by one’s
personal interests, prejudices, emotions, etc. 3. Of the mind or emotions only. (As opposed to objective).

Objective (def): undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable
phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective
evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective]

You cannot tell me that your opinion of, say, Catherine Tate is based on observable phenomena undistorted by emotion or personal bias. There can be no truly objective opinion about anything whose conclusion has not been reached by empirical investigation.

Perhaps it would be a more worthy debate to decide the methods by which two diametrically opposing views can come to a compromise: could you with your left-wing well-educated highly literate white Western upbringing find the areas of commonality with someone who believes everything in life should be conducted under Sharia law? If you were to engage in such a debate, *then* you might see that the only objectivity you are ever able to have in a morality debate will be those things to which you both, subjectively, agree.

Thank fuck there are people out there who hate Catherine Tate as much as I do. My younger brother and I who spend most of our time giggling together, finds her hilarious. You pays your money etc..

Oooh, hate is a strong word for a television programme, styx! Surely 'intensely despise' would work just as well...?

"No, no, no. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Feeling something is subjective does not automatically negate any type of opinion about morality; but one has to accept that there are always going to be differing views on the same thing. "

AG, that is NOT what subjective means! If you say something is subjective, you are NOT saying that there are differing vews on it. If that is what you mean to say, you are misappropriating the word 'subjective'. 'Subjective' means that it is not relating to anything true - anything constant in all our experience - but to our private experiences.

The definitions you quote here:
"Subjective (def): 2. Originating from or influenced by one’s
personal interests, prejudices, emotions, etc."

and:
"Objective (def): undistorted by emotion or personal bias;"

are related to subjective/objective solely in the field of reason, not in the philosophical sense that we are arguing it. And in reason, only opinions and arguments can be subjective or objective - the discussed matter cannot be described as such.

If you say 'morality is subjective', you are using the philosophical definitions of subjective/objective, and that relates to what I said earlier re. the colour blue. The objective is that which is available to all, the subjective that part of experience that is only available to you - what 'blue' looks like in your mind.

If you say 'your argument is subjective', you are using the alternative definitions of the terms, where 'subjective' means simply 'biased' and objective means 'without bias'.

Wikipedia has pretty much the same distinction under 'subjectivity' I know it's confusing, but there's a pretty clear distinction between these uses of the words. If an *opinion* is subjective, it is biased. If anything else is subjective, it is related purely to an individual's unique experience and is unavailable to anyone except the individual.

So, if you tell me that most *views* on morality are subjective, you are telling me that most people are biased. That's fair enough, although I would argue that people are still capable of arguing morality without bias - it is possible to come at it from an unemotional, logical POV, and this is indeed what people attempt to do when they debate it seriously.

But if you tell me that morality itself is subjective, you are saying that it exists purely as private experience - that there is no part of morality that is available to everyone, or related to truth. This is the thing that is utter balderdash, and translates as moral nihilism.

"You cannot tell me that your opinion of, say, Catherine Tate is based on observable phenomena undistorted by emotion or personal bias."

This is a reasonable accusation and, in my case, you may be right. It is nevertheless possible for someone to form a view on Catherine Tate that is based on observable phenomena, where they remove their personal emotions and bias from the table as much as possible.

"There can be no truly objective opinion about anything whose conclusion has not been reached by empirical investigation."

This is again a more reasonable opinion that 'X is subjective', but again, I think I would disagree, at least to the extent that I would say people can form opinions on matters that are so close to objective that they might as well be. Again, I would cite, as an example, the fact that in music people are capable of agreeing something is bad, even when they enjoy it.

Similarly, I think it is possible to argue objectively about morality, although subjectivity has a strong tendency to creep in. That's what moral philosophy *means* to be, and how it is distinguished from people simply 'feeling' that things are wrong.

It doesn't matter which side of this debate you take though - in both cases, morality itself is still not subjective in the philosophical sense.

"If you were to engage in such a debate, *then* you might see that the only objectivity you are ever able to have in a morality debate will be those things to which you both, subjectively, agree."

Again, it doesn't have to be that we 'subjectively' agree. We can both, without personal bias, agree that killing innocent people is wrong. That is not something that requires emotional bias - we do not have to have seen people killed. We can agree, using reason, that killing innocent people is unjust, and we can build a debate from that.

As before, if you close down the definition of 'objective' or 'unbiased' to the point where you believe, as humans, we can never achieve it, then you are destroying the words. In order for them to have any meaning, there has to exist an accepted realm of argument where people are being objective.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Yan - isn't this basically your position?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'If you say 'morality is subjective', you are using the philosophical definitions of subjective/objective, and that relates to what I said earlier re. the colour blue. The objective is that which is available to all, the subjective that part of experience that is only available to you - what 'blue' looks like in your mind.

If you say 'your argument is subjective', you are using the alternative definitions of the terms, where 'subjective' means simply 'biased' and objective means 'without bias'.'

I understand the difference, and I see what you're getting at, but in terms of 'morality', there simply *isn't* an objective perspective; the nature of philosophical debate precludes that. You are in essence saying that there are (or perhaps, should be) 'isms' in morality, 'isms' being those things which *everyone* collectively accepts to be true, because morality, to be objective in this sense, will have to be collectively agreed upon. And it simply isn't. Morality is not something that is available to everyone, because morality is dependent upon one's *subjective*, in the philosophical sense, experience of and reinforcement of, that morality, above which lies what I would call a 'pan-morality' of the collective agreement of that culture. Murdering one's relatives *is* wrong in this culture (objective), and should someone in this culture commit such an act they do so with an awareness that they are breaking the collective agreement, but whatever drives them to the murder outweighs the collective agreement; therefore, their subjective morality has overridden the objective. However, murdering one's relatives is *not* wrong in parts of Pakistan (objective); therefore if one commits such an act there there is little thought given to a subjective definition of morality because it is acceptable within the collective agreement. If this same person then comes to the UK and murders a relative, their subjective morality has still taken precedence over the collectively agreed morality of the prevailing culture, and no amount of punishment will convince that subjectively-derived morality to change.

'Again, I would cite, as an example, the fact that in music people are capable of agreeing something is bad, even when they enjoy it.'

Yes, *some* will agree, but not *all*, and this is where the flaw in assuming there must be an *objective* argument for X or Y being something, if objective means 'available to everyone'. Musical taste, like morality, is subjective; that lots of other people agree is very nice, but it doesn't change anything.

"You are in essence saying that there are (or perhaps, should be) 'isms' in morality, 'isms' being those things which *everyone* collectively accepts to be true, because morality, to be objective in this sense, will have to be collectively agreed upon. And it simply isn't."

It doesn't have to be collectively agreed upon. Objective truth can be something that remains unknown for centuries (like the fact that the world is round) and can remain an unknown or unagreed upon thing. If you believe in objective truth, it doesn't follow that you believe it is known, or that if it was possible to arrive at an understanding of it, that understanding would have been reached already.

You seem to be taking the moral skeptic's view - see the link I posted for Yan. Three strands - ethical nihilism, ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism, the latter of which holds that moral truths are "only true so long as you hold those beliefs".

I see this as a slippery slope to the radical subjectivism described in this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

I also just don't agree with the logic here:
"However, murdering one's relatives is *not* wrong in parts of Pakistan (objective); therefore if one commits such an act there there is little thought given to a subjective definition of morality because it is acceptable within the collective agreement. "

Just as the world was not flat in an age just because everybody had decided it was flat, I don't believing that murdering relatives in parts of Pakistan is objectively *not* wrong just because everyone there thinks so.

The mistake is in thinking that objectivity stands for some kind of ultimate collective agreement, and that the absense of an ultimate collective agreement is proof of the lack of the objective. Whereas someone who believes in moral objectivity can believes it exists whether or not people can agree on it. I believe, for example, that it *could* be a morally objective truth that killing *anything* is wrong, but that this is something we have simply not discovered yet, through the course of moral progress, just as for centuries we had not discovered that the world was, in fact, round.

There may be no thought given to morality without a sentient social species, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. We could say that there is morality for Yan's bats, that there exists morality in a world where there are only bats - it simply has no bearing on a species that is incapable of moral consideration. We do not let animals kill each other because we believe are exempt from morality, or doesn't exist for them - we simply believe that it is not actually immoral to allow them to kill each other, or that there is no more moral course of action than allowing them to live as they do.

Similarly, with the music, just because some people do not agree yet does not disprove an objective truth - it just means not everyone might not have come to it yet. Literary historians place a lot of importance on the idea that a piece's 'true worth' is not necessarily recognised in its time. I doubt many of them believe that different values simply indicate that Van Gogh was crap when he was alive, but great when he was dead - they believe that he was great all along.

Similarly, it looks like however staunchly I might grate my teeth at the Beatles, most people have come to recognise them as objectively great and will not accept that their greatness is a matter of subjectivity. Although in that instance it rubs me up the wrong way, I think that kind of belief is generally much better for a person's cultural health than one which blithely accepts that such difficult things as art and morality are forever a case of subjective opinions clashing. I find it difficult to see how a true moral skeptic can engage with any real gusto in a debate about morality, since they believe that their 'right' and 'wrong' are no more true than anyone else's.

I mean, yeah - moral skepticism seems to me to lend itself to not giving a crap about evil stuff that goes on in other societies. Because it's not actually 'evil' over there, is it?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Additional clarification:

Seems that my view on this is called either moral realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Or moral absolutism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

The latter of which is (I'm chuffed to say) the basis on which human rights theory is formed.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I agree that my example above was weak; I was trying to write something quickly before leaving the office!

I suspect you are seeking an answer that relies on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism.

I tend to be more relativistic about things. Morality is contextual, not universal; and morality is dictated to a large extent by the prevailing culture; or maybe I should say that, even in the face of a 'universal' morality, the contexts under which that morality could be challenged are manifold, and therefore may not hold true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

The world of medical ethics, for example, is filled with heated debate about absolute morality; and as far as I know they have yet to reach any absolute conclusion.

Concerning the Beatles I would tend to agree; although I cop to liking 'Eleanor Rigby' a lot.

Hi. Are we still debating Catherine Tate?

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

lol! In theory, yes.

'Objective truth can be something that remains unknown for centuries'

I agree, but I doubt that whether or not Catherine Tate is funny or not is going to
be debated for centuries - unless Jack outlives the rest of us :)

Due to my slap-dashiness I'm embarrassed to admit that I previously had no idea that you're Jon Stone. I recall a good few times when you came to my defence in the past when all odds were stacked against me...so thanks ;)

I can appreciate and sympathise with all angles of this debate but to 'believe' that there is an objectivity to morality (or comedy) suggests that I must step outside level-headed debate and start eagerly avowing the incomprehensible (check sig :)) which, if you ARE a true advocate of human rights, you'll understand leads to blind faith and we all know what that's done (and will do) in the future. ??

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I agree, yan. A lot of nasty things have occurred in the name of moral absolutism...

"I agree, but I doubt that whether or not Catherine Tate is funny or not is going to
be debated for centuries - unless Jack outlives the rest of us :)"

Well, I've only ever been arguing that there is a validity and a point to saying that something "is not funny" or definitively right or wrong, and that taking the line that the thing in question is subjective - and therefore that no person's view is more true than another's - is not something a defence we should accept.

I spent most of last night arguing with some other moral relativists, and another moral realist. You know how, when you debate, you have to establish common ground, and keep appealing to something you both agree on in order to build your argument from that? Well, the floor kept crumbling away from me with respect to that, to the point where one of the moral relativists just ended up arguing that we are unable to communicate, there is no such thing as communication, that words have no meaning and that there's no such thing as knowledge.

When it goes that far, you know you're never going to get back to anywhere useful.

"I can appreciate and sympathise with all angles of this debate but to 'believe' that there is an objectivity to morality (or comedy) suggests that I must step outside level-headed debate and start eagerly avowing the incomprehensible (check sig :)) which, if you ARE a true advocate of human rights, you'll understand leads to blind faith and we all know what that's done (and will do) in the future. ??"

Here's the thing: although thinking through one string of logic might lead people to believe in moral relativism, in practice, everyone with a view on morality is acting as if they believe in an absolute right and wrong, like in AG's world of medical ethics. You can't adopt a practical position where you believe in right and wrong, but also believe those values are subjective. Demonstration:

Q. There is no objective right and wrong. So what does it mean to you when you do something that is 'right'?
A. I am doing it according to a cultural idea of what is 'right'.
Q. So it's pure comformity? You think that because everyone else does it?
A. Well, no. I'd only do it if made sense to me.
Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'?
A. If it is, say, for the good of everyone within my society.
Q. So surely you believe that what is 'good' for your society is 'right'?
A. Well, what's 'good' is 'good'. We know what 'good' means. I'm doing it because it's 'good'.
Q. So you believe in an objective 'good' then?
A. Well, no. What's good is what suits everyone in my society best.
Q. But then you must believe it is objectively 'right' that society pursues what suits most of its members best?
A. No, but obviously, that's what a society will do.
Q. But you don't think that's objectively right or good, and you already said you're not doing it just to conform. So why do you go along with the rules?
A. Because what's best for my society is going to be best for me.
Q. So you think it's objectively right that you benefit?
A. No, but again, obviously, I'm going to go after what suits me.
Q. But if not because you believe it's objectively right, then why?
A. Because I get pleasure or comfort from doing what suits me best.
Q. So you're saying that you essentially pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and that all your morality springs from that?
A. Right.
Q. Well then, you would surely never submit yourself to pain, or forfeit pleasure, for another person's sake?
A. Well, I would, if I thought it was right.

You see what I mean? However far you go back, there's got to be something that you believe is actually 'right' for you to take a moral position on something. You can't be doing it just for your own benefit, or else you would always value your own safety and health above everyone else's. You can't just be doing it because society says so, unless you're a rampant conformist, or unless you believe that what is best for everyone is an objective right. The only other option that I can see is that you believe you do things that are 'right for you' with absolute no rationale behind them.

So re. what I was trying to get at earlier - *yes*, some forms of moral absolutism would seem to relate to fanaticism, but anyone advocating *true* moral relativism must believe, ultimately, in the arbritrariness of morality. They therefore have no moral position on anything - they must believe moral debate is simply different people's irrational moralities clashing.

Whereas if you believe in any kind of rationale behind your morality, as demonstrated above, it must either: a) ultimately lead back to the fact that you believe in an objective right, or b) lead back to an absolute selfishness, which is no kind of morality at all.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

JC, I love the Q and A example. But I disagree with many of your answers. And have ameded the below accordingly. I have removed questions that I feel are dealt with in answers given, if that's okay.

Q. There is no objective right and wrong. So what does it mean to you when you do something that is 'right'?
A. I am acting according to what I believe to be the best course of action for me. What makes sense for me, if you like.

Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'?
A. If it is according to my concept of good.

Q. But then you must believe it is objectively 'right' that society pursues what suits most of its members best?
A. No. But obviously, in order to live together, I must make consessions to my ideas of right in order to find some middle ground between millions of conflicting ideas--like the overlap in a venn diagram. That overlap moves constantly, depending on the place or time and so cannot be seen as objective, because the nature of objective good--if it existed--would have to be good for all poeple, at all times. That's what objectvie is: it stands true away from mankind.

Q. But if not because you believe it's objectively right, then why?
A. Because I get pleasure or comfort from doing what suits me best.

Q. So you're saying that you essentially pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and that all your morality springs from that?
A. No. I persue my own values, which may lead to either pleasure or pain. If I thought it was 'right' to dive in front of a bullet for a friend, I would. I can't see that my choice of whether to do that is objective, because not everyone would react the same way. So it must be subjective.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Q. Well then, you would surely never submit yourself to pain, or forfeit pleasure, for another person's sake?
A. Well, I would, if I thought it was right.
Q. why is that?
A. Because what benefits another at present will, if the system holds, serve to benefit me in the future. (recall the vampire bats)

Fair enough. We can take a glimpse at history and witness morality evolving relative to human insight and progress. For example, let's say that neurologists discover that human consciousness (self-will and self-determination) arises as a result of a convergence of separate areas of the brain which give the illusion of consciousness as distinct. Now let's say that it is also discovered that animals possess these exact same processess and it can be confirmed that they share the same 'conscious spark' as a human does. Would slaughtering animals still be morally justified. So morality, in that sense, would be considered relative to progress, culture and intelligence would it not?

Time and motion are both relative, something that has been confirmed objectively but the west are still quite happy to perceive 'time' absolutely as derived from Newtonian law.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Yan:
"A. Because what benefits another at present will, if the system holds, serve to benefit me in the future."

But if the purpose of the system is to benefit you, then when the system clashes with what is of direct benefit to you, there is no sense in following the system. It would be like creating a company purely in order to make yourself money, but then bankrupting yourself in order to keep the company afloat.

Also, if your system is purely designed to benefit you, then you cannot possibly see anything wrong with another culture in which their system allows murder, as long as it stays away from you.

Enzo:

"Q. On what criteria does it 'make sense'?
A. If it is according to my concept of good."

Your 'concept of good' is your belief in an objective good, or again, an objective right. If it wasn't objective, you would be talking about an irrational, arbitrary idea of good that you don't believe is any more true than anyone else's idea of good. If you have a rationality to your idea of good, you must again trace if back to a root concept of good or right, or something based on selfishness (which is not good at all, and would not allow you the possibility of self-sacrifice).

"A. No. I persue my own values, which may lead to either pleasure or pain. If I thought it was 'right' to dive in front of a bullet for a friend, I would. I can't see that my choice of whether to do that is objective, because not everyone would react the same way. So it must be subjective."

Q. But again, do you believe that your decision is irrational? You did it because you thought it was 'right', but you believe that 'rightness' is something that has no moral logic or reason behind it?

A1. Well, of course there is a moral rationale behind it.

(We again trace back the rationale to something that you believe is objectively right.)

A2. No, there is no rationality, in this case, to my decision. It simply seems like something I should do.

(But then you are saying that your decision is actually no more right than a decision to let your friend take the bullet. If both decisions are equally without rational basis, then there is actually no right or wrong decision.)

The basic principle here is that if you are do something because you think it is right, you are acting on the belief that it is objectively right. For example, if someone says killing is wrong, they are not saying, "I personally would never kill someone," and acting according to that rule - they are saying that all killing should be prevented and that people who kill are wrong to do so.

This is a distinct position from someone who believes that, for them, killing doesn't make sense or doesn't seem like something they should do. For someone who only believed that killing was wrong *for them* it does not follow that they have to prevent killing elsewhere, because they must be aware that, for other people, killing might be OK. Sure, you might step in, if you'd made a rule for yourself that you should prevent killing where possible, but you could not believe that people who killed were wrong - because their morality is theirs, yours is yours.

So, yeah, if you say something is wrong or right, you are really saying that this is an objective reality that all people should recognise. It stands in contradiction to, "Well, I live my life according to these arbitrary rules, and other people live their life by another set of arbitrary rules, and neither is more right or wrong."

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

C'mon Jack, it's lunch time. Try and keep these posts shorter :) I'll have to read this fully when I've finished my tuna butty/

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I'm with Yan. Shorter posts!

The things is this: You are saying that rationality comes from an objective good. I am saying that the process of rationalisation - to quote Kierkegaard - is a process of mediation that happens where you simply judge whether or not something is good for you to do. That judgement is based on your own values, not through a 'window to the objective nature of the universe' or anything like that. Those values are, influenced by your community and wider society.

If you persue objectivity to its end, you deny emotion and humanity. It simply doesn't make sense. You suggest that we all know what good is and act according to, or agaist it. Clearly, this is not the case. Look at history. Look around you. Killing: sometimes good, sometimes not. Homosexuality: once evil, now (for most[!]) not. There can be no objectivity derived from anything that is tangible. All truth is personal and temporal. There is no truth for all. There is me, and for you, most probably, there is you. When it comes to specific differences of opinions, which are real and do exist, objectivity fails because not ONE THINK can be shown as objectively true for all, for all time.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Yes, brevity for all!

:-)

That said...

...

JC: Whereas if you believe in any kind of rationale behind your morality, as demonstrated above, it must either: a) ultimately lead back to the fact that you believe in an objective right, or b) lead back to an absolute selfishness, which is no kind of morality at all
…&…
JC: If you have a rationality to your idea of good, you must again trace if back to a root concept of good or right, or something based on selfishness (which is not good at all, and would not allow you the possibility of self-sacrifice).

...

Everything everyone ever does is selfish. Selfishness is at the root of morality. The following supports this viewpoint…

...

Enzo: Q. But if not because you believe it's objectively right, then why?
A. Because I get pleasure or comfort from doing what suits me best.

Yan: Q. Well then, you would surely never submit yourself to pain, or forfeit pleasure, for another person's sake?
A. Well, I would, if I thought it was right.
Q. why is that?
A. Because what benefits another at present will, if the system holds, serve to benefit me in the future.

...

And finally...

Enzo: not ONE THINK can be shown as objectively true for all, for all time.

... Yes!! :-)
(I presume you meant "THING")

...

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

"Everything everyone ever does is selfish. Selfishness is at the root of morality."

No. No, no, no. No.

Suppose you had £5 on the table in front of you, and you had the choice to either have it given to you, or given to a charity. The catch is that as soon as you make your decision, and the transaction happens, you and everyone else involved in the transaction will forget that it has taken place. There is no reward. No one knows you've done it.

If everything everyone did was selfish, there would be absolutely no way anyone would give that money to the charity. No way at all. And yet, what would you do?

Enzo:
"You are saying that rationality comes from an objective good. "

No. I am saying that all moral action arises from belief in an objective good. These are the 'values' that you are talking about. These 'values' are tied to what you consider to be objective good or objective right. If you didn't believe they were objectively good, then it is impossible to believe that they are better values than anyone else's.

The principle thing is: you cannot have your cake and eat it. You can't believe that your values are worth more than someone else's, and yet that they are not, objectively. You either believe your values should apply to everyone, or they should apply only to you. If you believe they only apply to you, then you cannot judge other people based on your values - you can only judge them based on their own values.

"If you persue objectivity to its end, you deny emotion and humanity. It simply doesn't make sense. You suggest that we all know what good is and act according to, or agaist it."

Not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that all human moral endeavour rests on the instrinsic belief in moral objectivity and that moral progress is a route towards agreeing what that moral objectivity is, what values are absolute and what are not.

If you only believe in moral subjectivity, you do not believe your values apply to anyone else. If you believe in moral relativity (where morals apply within specific cultures, rather than individuals) you do not believe your values apply outside your culture.

Here's a couple of scenarios for you:
1) On a distant planet, light years away, there is a race of aliens who kill and torture one another. In their race's moral belief, this is the correct way of doing things. They will never come into contact with us, or have any bearing on our lives. They have nothing to do with our society.

Should they stop?

How can you possibly say yes without appealing to Universal moral values?

2) In Tanzania and Kenya, the practice of female circumcision still continues to this day. This means that they cut the woman's clitoris off around puberty, and in some cases, sew up their vaginas until the night of their wedding. This is perfectly acceptable in the Maasai society, and in that of other African tribes.

Obviously, their values are different to ours. Should they revise them? Again, how can you possibly say that? In order to suggest that our values in this matter are more important than theirs you must again appeal to the existence of a Universal morality.

The simple fact is this: If you see moral subjectivism through to its logical conclusion, you have no right to intervene in someone else's moral value system.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Ok, 2 points:

1. "No. I am saying that all moral action arises from belief in an objective good. These are the 'values' that you are talking about. These 'values' are tied to what you consider to be objective good or objective right. If you didn't believe they were objectively good, then it is impossible to believe that they are better values than anyone else's."

Exactly what I'm saying!!!

I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. That is a subjectvie belief. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself. It is something that people belive in; Just as many poeple base their values on a god's word: I say there is no god at all.

2. "The simple fact is this: If you see moral subjectivism through to its logical conclusion, you have no right to intervene in someone else's moral value system"

No. We are back to disagreeing about what subjectivity is. I am saying the following:

- I believe something.

- It is subjective, in that I believe it to be true but accept that opinion may change from person to person, or in my own mind, over time.

- If I so choose to impose that belief on others, it is not because I am appealing to any objectuive truth, it is because my actions are what I consider to be good, as per my own values.

I would very much like to have this conversation face to face one day. I find all this difficult to explain writing and while I know we may never agree, it would be better if we didn't agree but fully understood each other.

Forgive typos please.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

JC: "Suppose you had £5 on the table in front of you, and you had the choice to either have it given to you, or given to a charity. The catch is that as soon as you make your decision, and the transaction happens, you and everyone else involved in the transaction will forget that it has taken place. There is no reward. No one knows you've done it.

If everything everyone did was selfish, there would be absolutely no way anyone would give that money to the charity. No way at all. And yet, what would you do?"

…

Oh good, I'm glad someone challenged me! :-)

Why do we give money to charity? Why does anyone give money to charity? Yes, there’s the altruistic: “because I want to help the orphans/homeless/etc”… but why do we, as humans, do altruistic things? Why do we (some of us) want to help people? Does it not make us “feel good”? Would we do altruistic things if there was no positive emotional benefit? Or, to take it to a more metaphysical level, if there was no (percieved) benefit to our soul? I’d say not… Therefore everything we do, however altruistic it seems to be, has an ultimate selfish motive…

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

I think you're still in have-your-cake-and-eat-it mode, Enzo.

"I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself."

If you don't believe in an objective good, then you can't be basing your own values on an objective good (you can't base them on something you don't believe in).

If you aren't basing your values on an objective good, then you don't believe your values are any truer than someone else's who are entirely different. Therefore, you have no right to impose your values on them, because your values only apply to your subjective reality.

Crux of the matter is here:

"It is subjective, in that I believe it to be true."

This is an impossible position. Objectivity is truth. If you believe something is true, you believe it is true for everyone. If it's subjective, it is fundamentally neither true nor false - it is an illusion.

This isn't really philosophy anymore, but back to semantics. Take a quick gander at the wiki article again on moral skepticism again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism - there are generally three possible positions you can logically come to from the proposal that 'there are no objective truths in morality'. You either believe morality does not exist, that moral values only apply to the individual who believes in them, or that moral truths only apply to a culture within which those moral truths are agreed.

In the third case, you do not believe your own values apply to anyone outside of your culture. In the second, you believe your own values apply only to yourself, or someone else who happens to share those values. In the first, you do not believe in values.

As I say, this isn't really philosophy - it's back to understanding what subjectivity is, and that is something cannot be true nor false, right or wrong. We're back to our previous argument where if you don't accept that objectivity stands for truth, then the words are meaningless.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Peps, you have completely ignored my scenario and question and gone off on a ramble instead.

"Does it not make us “feel good”? Would we do altruistic things if there was no positive emotional benefit? Or, to take it to a more metaphysical level, if there was no (percieved) benefit to our soul? I’d say not… Therefore everything we do, however altruistic it seems to be, has an ultimate selfish motive."

Read the scenario again. There is no emotional benefit. You will forget about the £5 as soon as you make the decision. So will everyone else. You will not get the chance to feel good about it, and you won't perceive any benefit to your soul.

If people were incapable of being anything other than selfish, no one would give the £5 to charity. And yet, ask yourself: what would you do?

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Just to avoid me (and

Just expanding on the £5 thing for a mo. If you see a child fall into the river the first thing you would is help the child regardless of the consequences. But we have to be aware of the fact that we still possess the same brain as we did 100,000 years ago. A tribesman relied on strength in numbers, not only for protection against predators but also against rival tribes. It was in the tribesman's interests to jump in and save his tribe buddy to ensure his own long-term survival. Not to mention the fact that most tribes were mostly inbred so therefore genetically motivated. We still have that in-built instinctive tendency to help other and besides these scenarios can all still be well covered by reciprocal altruism (where, to my surprise, the vampire bat anaolgy crops up) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Another reason the mr.tribeman may have jumped into the river is because he was showing off his alpha-maleness which would have had good returns regards leadership and reproduction (this info comes from studies into monkeys and other ape-things).

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

JC: "Peps, you have completely ignored my scenario and question and gone off on a ramble instead."

... No I haven't! Although maybe I didn't join the dots... You may indeed (and everyone else) *forget* (inasmuch as we ever really forget anything - which is perhaps more of a matter for neuroscience than philosophy...) about your decision to donate some money, but at the time of donating I can't believe you don't do it because you feel good about doing it. That feeling may be virtually instantaneous, but I can't believe it would not exist at all...

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, Yan?

:-/

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Idling Through Complexity")

I DUNNO! lol...to be honest I've kinda lost track now because I'm worried about taking my daughter for a hair cut...it's traumatic for both of us. Your topic-head is coming back to haunt me, peps: 'and on it goes! No rules or anything, just see how long we can string it out… OK? Just for fun!'

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

You're wriggling out of it, Peps. There is no instantaneous good feeling. Let me put it this way - you are on some sort of medication and find that you are incapable of feeling good about anything. If you've suffered ever been on strong anti-depressants you'll know that this is possible. The forgetting scenario also takes place - it is absolutely instantaneous, as soon as the decision is made.

Would you honestly still not give money to the charity? I think I would.

"If you see a child fall into the river the first thing you would is help the child regardless of the consequences."

No, I think that's ridiculous. I wouldn't go in if the water was going to kill me and I didn't stand a chance of saving the child. I wouldn't go in until I'd checked that the child couldn't sort it out himself, or that no one else was already on the scene?

Even then, do I know if I would? The premise of Camus' 'La Chute' is that the main character has watched a woman drowning and done nothing to save her. I would suggest that it's plainly absurd to think we would save a child as the result of some sort of tribal instinct. Some people wouldn't. What - have they got different ancestors?

I think you're going down the wrong path entirely in trying to argue that we do things because of instinct. Look at this way: any decent survival instinct would see you getting far away from a fire. You can't possibly argue that some sort of 'tribal memory' would cause someone to go back in for someone - two burn victims are no use to a caveman tribe at all.

And yet, some people would do it. Again, if you think a moral value is just an agreed subjective way of doing things that will benefit the most people most broadly, there is absolutely no reason to risk your life, because the reason for that moral value existing is in conflict with the value itself.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Bloody hell. The rest of this thread makes my eyes sore just to skim it. So I'm giving up. Just one last thing about the original (ish) question and I’ll leave you to your five pound note (btw, wouldn't the person gain a pre-decision buzz from *contemplating* doing the honourable thing which would then push him to hit the ‘give the fiver to charity’ button? Or have you covered that? I'm not a Hobbsian btw.)

Anyhow…

“Well, I've only ever been arguing that there is a validity and a point to saying that something "is not funny" or definitively right or wrong, and that taking the line that the thing in question is subjective - and therefore that no person's view is more true than another's - is not something a defence we should accept.”

I agree there is a validity and a point to saying that certain things are definitively this or definitively that. I have never put forth the theory that everything is ‘subjective.’ Just because the Crusades were considered ‘right’ and justified at the time, for example, doesn’t mean they actually were. You can successfully debate something like a military campaign because, although people may cherry-pick the consequences they want to focus on, the actual results of a military campaign are fixed. Perceptions of the campaign may change over time or from different standpoints but the actual consequences, e.g. body count, stays the same.

Not everything follows this simple pattern of actions and definitive consequences. Some actions produce outcomes that *differ* according to a variable element. For instance, whether hypnotherapy is effective or not depends on the skill of the practitioner *and* the susceptibility of the patient. In that case I believe it is valid to say, if hypnotherapy works for you, it works. That’s not washing my hands of a debate on the efficacy of hynotherapy – that’s my answer to it.

I believe the same is true of comedy. The actual outcome of the exact same comedy performance will vary according to who is watching it, depending on their susceptibility to that particular form of humour. You can say that X’s material is lame or witless or repetitive or whatever, it may well be all of those, but to say something is categorically unfunny, implying not just unfunny to me but unfunny to other people even though it obviously causes them to laugh, doesn’t make sense to me.

What clouds the issue is that, in some cases, the same performance can have additional consequences which have to be taken into account. That is when the laugher is elicited at other people’s expense. Then the outcome includes hurt, offense, harmful encouragement of negative stereotypes etc. I would accept a debate on those grounds as to why X’s comedy is bad or the people laughing are doing so for nefarious reasons, but the Roy Chubby Brown’s can’t explain every case. That is why, in my previous example, I cited Lee Evans because, to my knowledge, he doesn’t rely on any stocks and tomatoes humour, yet I still don’t find him funny. Other people find him funny, so I accept that for them, Lee Evans is funny. That is what I meant by comedy being subjective.

~
www.fabulousmother.com

Firstly...

I’m not wriggling, Jack - I’m not a wriggler! What I am saying is that everything we do, every decision we make, has some sort of motivator - and I am of the opinion that ultimately, at its core, that motivator is selfish. I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing! If you donate money to charity or help an old lady cross the road or go to a third world country to help starving children, because it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that you are doing some good, are you a bad person? Does it matter, in the grand scheme of things, that you do charitable deeds because it makes you feel good? Even taking this to the metaphysical level, if someone who calls themself a Christian does not necessarily “feel” good about what they do, but they volunteer at a women’s refuge because “God is watching” and “it is the Christian thing to do”... aren’t they ultimately doing what they are doing to secure their place in Heaven?

You say you would give money to charity even if you had had your emotions nullified by, for example, anti-depressant drugs. Firstly, I find it hard to believe that anything could completely, 100%, obliterate our ability to feel any emotions. But let’s say that I am wrong... how do you, Jack Cade, know that under such circumstances you would still donate money to charity? Do you know of anyone who you know has felt know emotions whatsoever and has still, for totally selfless reasons, donated money to charity? (or some other seemingly selfless act)

...

And secondly...

I feel the need to put in my twopenneth worth re the question of instincts... Instincts are (and this is a vast oversimplification) complex. And the thing about them is, we may have evolved a particular behaviour pattern for which the conditions of its inception no longer existence. So although that behaviour pattern may now be technically “useless” or “obsolete,” it doesn’t mean that it is not something that has evolved, instinctive and passed down from our ancestors. A “tribal memory” may indeed incite us to go back into a burning building, because for whatever reason our ancestors may have lived under conditions such that the most virile and likely-to-procreate members of our tribe often found themselves in burning buildings (or caves or huts or teepees)... so the survival of our tribe/species and the passing on of our genes meant that entering burning buildings made sense.

Not to say that all modern human behaviour is the result of instincts (one could probably argue that this is the case, but that’s a whole other tangent)... but I do believe one can greatly underestimate their impact.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

2Lou: "btw, wouldn't the person gain a pre-decision buzz from *contemplating* doing the honourable thing which would then push him to hit the ‘give the fiver to charity’ button? Or have you covered that?"

... I do not believe that has been covered, Lou! And you make a valid and perceptive point! :-)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

Yan: "Your topic-head is coming back to haunt me, peps: 'and on it goes! No rules or anything, just see how long we can string it out… OK? Just for fun!' "

:-)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

'There is no instantaneous good feeling'

No? Are you fooling yourself?

'Let me put it this way - you are on some sort of medication and find that you are incapable of feeling good about anything.'

what is he 'on'? anti-anti-depressants?

'If you've suffered ever been on strong anti-depressants you'll know that this is possible'

It's possible...but it's relative to the standard of mental health service you may have been lucky or unlucky to have experienced.

'Would you honestly still not give money to the charity? I think I would.'

Alot of people give to charity under the bizarres impression that they're going to be rewarded for it at some point - maybe in the afterlife?? religion (or absolute truth) offers rewards just as reciprocal altruism does! Amongst many other factors.

'No, I think that's ridiculous. I wouldn't go in if the water was going to kill me and I didn't stand a chance of saving the child. I wouldn't go in until I'd checked that the child couldn't sort it out himself, or that no one else was already on the scene?'

Welcome to the world of natural selection, Jack. Where's the objective morality gone? Not everyone has the 'balls' to believe in themselves!

Even then, do I know if I would? The premise of Camus' 'La Chute' is that the main character has watched a woman drowning and done nothing to save her. I would suggest that it's plainly absurd to think we would save a child as the result of some sort of tribal instinct. Some people wouldn't. What - have they got different ancestors?

No Jack...they have subjective opinions as to what is moral and immoral

I think you're going down the wrong path entirely in trying to argue that we do things because of instinct. Look at this way: any decent survival instinct would see you getting far away from a fire. You can't possibly argue that some sort of 'tribal memory' would cause someone to go back in for someone - two burn victims are no use to a caveman tribe at all.

They may be no use to a 'caveman' tribe, Jack...but the prospect of rescuing them promises great rewards for the hero. Ever wondered why women naturally have a 'thing' for firemen?

Jack - again you're appealing to a majesterium outside rational debate. Arguments immediately break down when you refer to the incomprehensible. if you insist on this train of thought then we might aswell accept that this whole argument is subjective.

To address one of 2lou's comments: 'Some actions produce outcomes that *differ* according to a variable element. For instance, whether hypnotherapy is effective or not depends on the skill of the practitioner *and* the susceptibility of the patient.'

I would agree with 'susceptibility' but due to the ability of hypnotherapy to create false memories I wouldn't go further than to suggest that hypnotherpay is merely a technique to assess how 'vulnerable' a person is - period!

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I missed too much and can't read through it all. Just one point on this:

""I agree many people's values are based on a *belief* in objective good. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as objective good in and of itself."

If you don't believe in an objective good, then you can't be basing your own values on an objective good (you can't base them on something you don't believe in)."

I'm saying *I* don't believe in an objective good, any more than I believe in a god. But I acknowledge others do, and the rest of your argument seems to follow for those people that do.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Yan: "Jack - again you're appealing to a majesterium outside rational debate. Arguments immediately break down when you refer to the incomprehensible. if you insist on this train of thought then we might aswell accept that this whole argument is subjective."

... Innit, though!

:-)

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

"what is he 'on'? anti-anti-depressants?"

Yan - anti-depressants don't make you 'feel good'. They're meant to stop you feeling crap. Some do this by efectively numbing all feelings, so you don't really feel good or bad about anything.

"Welcome to the world of natural selection, Jack. Where's the objective morality gone? Not everyone has the 'balls' to believe in themselves!"

I don't follow you at all. You said that tribal instinct makes people automatically jump into a river to save a child. I said that's a load of cock, which it is. You're now saying that the fact that some people would and some people wouldn't is natural selection? What? No.

A person is quite capable of not jumping in to save a child, but deciding that this is the wrong course of action. They could be racked with guilt afterwards. If we did everything for selfish reasons - ie. the only reason we do good things is to avoid guilt - then, sure, we'd all jump in to save the child.

But you know what? Some of us *don't* give to charity. I can't recall having done so in recent years. And yet, I don't feel guilty or ashamed about it. Nor do I believe that doing so would make my life any better. It *may* give me a good feeling, but not as good as buying myself something nice.

In fact, spending the same amount on something for me as I would for chairty would almost always make me feel better. By the logic of you and Peps, I cannot possibly believe that giving to charity is the morally better option, because my morality is guided by my desires.

"No Jack...they have subjective opinions as to what is moral and immoral."

The buffoonery continues! The protagonist of 'La Chute' doesn't think it was moral to leave the woman drowning! Who would? The whole book is based him recognising his moral failing! People are often able to distinguish between what's good for them and what objective moral values they believe in, but are not always able to act on them. In a world where morality was whatever suited them best, then there would be no conflict between what they wanted and what they believed was the right thing to do.

"They may be no use to a 'caveman' tribe, Jack...but the prospect of rescuing them promises great rewards for the hero. Ever wondered why women naturally have a 'thing' for firemen?"

Are you having a distracted day, Yan? Third rubbish point in a row. I mean, that's weak with a capital W. Fetishes for uniformed figures are consistantly to do with sub/dom desires (the uniform represents authority). Added to that, firemen have to be well built, which is also something *some* women (but not all, or even most, I'd say) like to see.

And why would rescuing promise great rewards for the hero? That makes no evolutionary sense. To an extent, there has to be bravery, yes, but only it has to be strongly tempered by a sense of self-preservation. I chose the fire scenario because that's a situation where the likely loss from a rescue attempt (no fire-fighting equipment in prehistoric tribes) far outweighs the loss from not doing so. Human beings consistently go above and beyond the call of any useful evolutionary survival instinct. They also consistently fall well below it - doing things exclusively for themselves when it can only hurt the race/tribe as a whole.

I'm not going to argue with the idea that morality/actions are based on survival instinct anymore, because, frankly, it's too stupid to bother with. Some tribal instinct survives in us, and can be seen in - say - the bodily reaction of producing adrenalin when anxious. But it is a small factor in most of our actions, which are based instead on degrees of rational thought.

Enzo:

"I'm saying *I* don't believe in an objective good, any more than I believe in a god. But I acknowledge others do, and the rest of your argument seems to follow for those people that do."

But you *do* believe in objective goods, or objective moral truths! I'm sorry, but if you have anything you truly consider 'values' then you do! If you believe your values are only 'subjective truths' then you don't believe that they apply to anyone who doesn't also have them in their own subjective reality.

The fundamental thing here is the African female circumcision situation I mentioned above. If you only believe in subjective moral truths, you cannot say that there is anything wrong with female circumcision in African - you can only say "This would not suit me" or "This would not suit my society."

Equally, you can not believe that, say, sexism in society was actually 'bad' at a time when everyone agreed that it was right. The moral subjectivist believes that it was neither right or wrong - merely that it suited people then, and doesn't suit people now.

Basically, if you believe morality is subjective, then you believe two distinct moral value systems that serve their communities in different ways are of equal value. You, Enzo, believe that your moral values are better than those that would serve to justify and promote female circumcision. Not better for you - better, full stop. You also believe that sexism is wrong, and has always been wrong. There is no basis for these beliefs other than the belief in a greater moral authority that transcends yours and theirs.

Unless I'm wrong and you have no real problem with female circumcision or sexism as long as they stay away from you and yours.

~

I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

In response to a few things Jack said (about “survial instincts” and what-have-you)...

Like I said previously... instincts are complex! Evolution/natural selection is a far more complex and brain-jiggering thing than the casual observer would percieve. Read anything by Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould or Daniel C Dennett (well his stuff on evolution, anyway), and you’ll see what I mean. “Survival instincts” aren’t just about preserving the self. They are about preserving the genes (re the seminal work on this subject matter, Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene”). Without going heavily into the complexities of reciprocal altruism and so on, in a population of a species, it may make evolutionary sense for some members of the population to sacrifice themselves for the good of the population as a whole - they do this to preserve their genes and to allow their genotype to be carried into the next generation. Generally speaking, throughout life on Earth, they don’t perform these seemingly selfless acts consciously - altruistic behaviour patterns have evolved, unconsciously, because they help to faciliate the replication of certain genes and genotypes. In humans, we do have consciousness - we make conscious decisions, based on our moral make-up or whatever... but it would be short-sighted to believe that our conscious decisions are never based upon or guided by instinctive, in-built, genetically coded behaviour patterns, as per the unconscious altruistic behaviours of so-called “lower” species.

[[[~P~]]]

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... "Disappearing Robots")

In terms of describing what I'm saying, you're almost spot on, JC. Until this:

"Unless I'm wrong and you have no real problem with female circumcision or sexism as long as they stay away from you and yours."

I believe it is wrong. I choose not to be overly proactive in preventing it (like most of us) although when I hear sexist comments, for example, I sometimes object.

For the rest, I agree more with what you say. For example:

"If you believe your values are only 'subjective truths' then you don't believe that they apply to anyone who doesn't also have them in their own subjective reality."

Yep, I agree with that. They can believe what they want, and I will disagree with them if I so wish.

"If you only believe in subjective moral truths, you cannot say that there is anything wrong with female circumcision in African - you can only say "This would not suit me" or "This would not suit my society.""

Almost. I would amend slightly. I can say, 'I don't believe it to be suitable behaviour.'

"Equally, you can not believe that, say, sexism in society was actually 'bad' at a time when everyone agreed that it was right. The moral subjectivist believes that it was neither right or wrong - merely that it suited people then, and doesn't suit people now."

Not really. Remember I've said that my perspective is All and Everything (caps for emphasis only). Therefore, as I don't agree with sexism right now, I would say that it is inappropriate and has always been so. However - as an example only - if I were to change my mind on the matter, then I would say that all this PC nonsense has gone to far, and we should get female linesmen out of football and that they had it right in the 11th century. My values change over time, as do most peoples. This is perfectly natural, because values are subjective.

"Basically, if you believe morality is subjective, then you believe two distinct moral value systems that serve their communities in different ways are of equal value."

No. I agree with people that share my views and disagree with those who don't. Just like we are now. Just like people do all the time.

Enzo..

Read my rubbish novel as it happens!
http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

'I'm not going to argue with the idea that morality/actions are based on survival instinct anymore, because, frankly, it's too stupid to bother with.'

So what (or who) are you appealing to for an answer, Jack?

Game theory is very interesting when studying human interactions. There are various complex models that I can't recall (maybe you could google it) but one interesting little statement derives from Game Theory to serve as an example as to the complexity of social interactions: a genie visits a man and offers him one wish. The genie also stresses that whatever the man wishes for his neighbour will receive double. So the man says, "ok - poke one of my eyes out."

The problem I have with your argument, Jack, is that it's so conceited. History has taught us a valuable lesson regards discarding human-centrism, egocentrism as non-progressive regards understanding life. Maybe cumulative selection inevitably leads to intelligence and intelligence inevitably leads to objective moral codes that we can pass on in the future? Who knows.

Good idea, peps. Jack, you read Dawkins or Gould, even Robert Winston's 'Human Instinct' if you like a lighter read, and I'll read one of your recommendations - the bible or something :) Or whatever.

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett