The 5 magnificent delusions regarding musical elitism

[Heckelgruber]

For one thing date is culture specific.

That's a kop-out: the objective measurement of time is founded in atomic physics. Commonsense notions of date could in principle be cashed out in these terms, therefore the statement has empirical meaning and can be measured.

 

[derbeder]

Hand in your contextualist based essay with the line "Mozart is excellent" and I can guarantee it will come back with a big fat F. I'm sure you would get a long way by arguing, "but that is truth to me." Also I would point out that you are incorrect to say that the statement "John Lennon was killed in 1980," is objective by your own logic.

i am actually working towards my phd in philosophy and i am interested in this topic. i did not present any arguments for the positions i outlined in the passage above and did not try to formulate the most plausible versions of each. i thought the above would suffice to at least get people to begin to think about how they want to explicit say what they mean by "such-and-such is all relative".

i will just say a couple words about contextualism here and leave it at that. there are indeed many linguists and philosophers who support some version of contextualism with respect to many expressions other than the obvious ones i mentioned like "I" and "here" - eg. determiners such as "every" and "some", gradable adjectives like "tall", verbs like "know" and "finish" (as in "John has finished"). it's best to look at their examples to understand what they are getting at.
let's take the following example:
i will have a party in the evening and i want to know if we have put all the bottles of beer we have bought in the fridge (so they are all cold when the party starts and so on). you check the fridge and say "every bottle is in the fridge". in the context of our conversation, it is not plausible to interpret you as saying that every bottle in the whole universe is in the fridge. it is clearly false that every bottle in the universe is in there and we are both well aware of this fact. it's more plausible to take what you are saying to be something like: every bottle we bought for the party is in the fridge. that's pretty obvious to those party to the conversation and also true. in a different context, where we are talking about bottles we are keeping for a different purpose, what is meant by "every bottle is in the fridge" may yet be different. for instance, if we are in conversation talking about bottles we bought at a certain date, by uttering that sentence you may say that the bottles we bought on that day are in the fridge. in sum, the example illustrates that the intuitive truth-conditions of utterances of the sentence in question seems to vary from one context of utterance to another.

the relation between the intuitive truth-conditions of a sentence and the meaning of a sentence as explicated by a theory of meaning for a language is complex. a speaker may utter a sentence with a certain meaning and yet say something very different. this happens in ironic utterances, for instance.
a contextualist theory takes the relation between the intuitive truth-conditions of the sentences in the examples and the meaning of those sentences to be very intimate. the meaning of a sentence on such a view is really sensitive to factors in possible contexts in which it is uttered.

there may be good reasons to locate the context-sensitivity of determiner phrases such as "every bottle" not in the determiner (in logic it's called a quantifier) "every" but in the nominal "bottle". (these reasons have to do with some linguistic constructions i won't mention here). some philosophers and linguists thus take many expressions of english to be context-sensitive, though speakers are not ordinarily aware of this context-sensitivity.
now, the more plausible versions of contextualism with respect to adjectives concerning taste ("good", "bad", "excellent", "delicious" etc.) posit a subtle form of context-dependence in these expressions, one that is not realized by ordinary speakers in the same way they realize the context-dependence of "I" and "here". one needs to consider a wealth of evidence from linguistic theory - as might be the case with "bottle", "tall" etc. to realize the fact, if it is indeed a fact. if ordinary speakers may not fully realize the context-dependence of an expression, such as "bottle" or "tall", it may seem to them that they are saying exactly the same thing in different context with an utterance of a sentence in which the expression occurs. if indeed adjectives such as "good" or "delicious" are context-dependent in a similar way, then it may again seem to speakers that different utterances of "Rhubarb is delicious" mean the same thing even though different utterances mean different things. again, one way to motivate the view would be by reference to the sort of example i gave above for the sentence "every bottle is in the fridge." other considerations also bear on the issue.
all i am trying to say here is this: a contextualist theory concerning adjectives of taste may have some plausibility and the evaluation of the proposal is not actually a simple matter.

i actually get to grade papers from undergraduates these days, by the way.

 

[Nothinggod]

Point taken. I would, though, say that Derberder has been guilty of just this kind of contextualism in the past, or at least of displaying a lack of objectivity. With that in mind I probably did take him out of context. Also I would point out that neither contextualism or expressivism suffices as a substitute for emprical knowledge, which is the ongoing argument that I have put forward on this forum.

 

[derbeder]

Sorry, what was the point again? Other than he was on an Ayn Rand based tirade about self truth being fundamental to all expression of opinion. Really what he is saying that empirical currency isn't important when you can justify anything you say as your own personal truth. Typical language of any first year psychology student really who can't really grasp the concept of empricism.

where have i said anything remotely similar to what you are saying here?

edit after reading the previous post: i have never said that contextualism about matters of taste (in music or elsewhere) is correct. indeed, i suspect that there are objective matters of fact about taste, so i tend to think that all three proposals i outlined in my earlier post are incorrect. my concern there was to try to elicit some response from people who say "there is no objective fact about what is good or beautiful" concerning what they actually when when they say such things. i thought you were actually saying such things, not me.

it is also good to bear in mind that contextualism with respect to some expressions rarely means that sentences which have those expressions as constituents are not factual. obviously "John Lennon did not die today" (the context sensitive expression here is "today") is factual even though there is a context-sensitive expression in it. however, the contextalist proposal about "good" etc. may however have something to do with articulating a sense of non-factuality, since the contextually varying parameter in these cases is the speaker's opinions. (in the case of "today" the parameter is the day of the utterance, in "bottle" a subset of all the bottles that exist.)

 

[Nothinggod]

See post 223

 

[Nothinggod]

I would say though that relativism is one thing and in itself it does have its validity, however I would argue that for relativism, and expressism for that matter, validity is limited to informal observances and explicitly expressed statements of opinion. There is no universality in the expression of anything that can be characterised in this way. Hence the statement, "I like beer" could be valid as a semi formal expression relative to the subject, however the expression "Beer is good" could only be taken as an informal observance where subjectivity is implictly assumed. The statement "beer is a brewed drink usually made of yeast and hops" in the context of cultural and practitional paradigms, notwithstanding the obvious philosophical ambiguities over what constitutes a drink or what brewing is, in my opinion constitutes an objective observance.

 

[i aint play this]

and?

 

[Nothinggod]

That's a kop-out: the objective measurement of time is founded in atomic physics. Commonsense notions of date could in principle be cashed out in these terms, therefore the statement has empirical meaning and can be measured.

Within the context of our western cultural paradigm. Other cultures observe time differently. As for atomic physics, even that is based on subjective analysis. Matter is only the probability of energy behaving within a given "paradigm". Time itself is only subjectively observed within the cultural paradigm we put it in.

 

[Nothinggod]

and?

And, I think the implication is fairly self explanatory, but for those that need it spelled out; some people don't understand the distinction.

 

[derbeder]

I would say though that relativism is one thing and in itself it does have its validity, however I would argue that for relativism, and expressism for that matter, validity is limited to informal observances and explicitly expressed statements of opinion. There is no universality in the expression of anything that can be characterised in this way. Hence the statement, "I like beer" could be valid as a semi formal expression relative to the subject, however the expression "Beer is good" could only be taken as an informal observance where subjectivity is implictly assumed. The statement "beer is a brewed drink usually made of yeast and hops" in the context of cultural and practitional paradigms, notwithstanding the obvious philosophical ambiguities over what constitutes a drink or what brewing is, in my opinion constitutes an objective observance.

from what you say here, i understand that you think there is no fact of the matter about what is good or delicious but there is a fact of the matter about things having to do with chemistry. i agree with the latter part for sure. in the earlier post, i was trying to see which of the three positions outlined there (if any) is the best way to articulate what you and other people are saying about matters of taste.

 

[Heckelgruber]

As for atomic physics, even that is based on subjective analysis. Matter is only the probability of energy behaving within a given "paradigm".

Now THAT is freshman relativism notwithstanding your allusion to Kuhn, which I acknowledge.

lol why dont you go debate quantum physics with stephen hawking or something

Go on.

""

 

[i aint play this]

k

 

[Nothinggod]

edit after reading the previous post: i have never said that contextualism about matters of taste (in music or elsewhere) is correct. indeed, i suspect that there are objective matters of fact about taste, so i tend to think that all three proposals i outlined in my earlier post are incorrect. my concern there was to try to elicit some response from people who say "there is no objective fact about what is good or beautiful" concerning what they actually when when they say such things. i thought you were actually saying such things, not me.

it is also good to bear in mind that contextualism with respect to some expressions rarely means that sentences which have those expressions as constituents are not factual. obviously "John Lennon did not die today" (the context sensitive expression here is "today") is factual even though there is a context-sensitive expression in it. however, the contextalist proposal about "good" etc. may however have something to do with articulating a sense of non-factuality, since the contextually varying parameter in these cases is the speaker's opinions. (in the case of "today" the parameter is the day of the utterance, in "bottle" a subset of all the bottles that exist.)

I'm not following you on the section highlighted. I personally do believe that "taste" is intrinsically subjective, and that indeed there is no objective fact about what is good or beautiful. That is not to say that I deny that such things exist, only that my observance of such things is based on my empirically influenced sense of aesthetic, which is unique to me and no-one else.

Regarding the point raised about the death of John Lennon, I would say that there are certain implicit cultural paradigms that probably need not be expressed regarding the issue of chronology in this case, however I am pointing out that notwithstanding these assumptions that the chronology is subject to subjectivity. The musical analogy here is the assumption that music theory is expressed in terms evenly tempered western chromaticism.

 

[Nothinggod]

Now THAT is freshman relativism notwithstanding your allusion to Kuhn, which I acknowledge.

I don't know, there are quite a few scientists that reject the cartesian notion that matter is made up of smaller particles of matter. Quite a few also have proven that time moves in different increments. I think they called that one the theory of general relativity or some shit like that. I think this guy called Einstein came up with that one. I might be wrong there. I guess though you might be right and I am really only referencing my own personal truth. A day is just a day and the universe is exactly as human beings perceive it.

 

[Manbient]

I personally do believe that "taste" is intrinsically subjective, and that indeed there is no objective fact about what is good or beautiful. That is not to say that I deny that such things exist, only that my observance of such things is based on my empirically influenced sense of aesthetic, which is unique to me and no-one else.

i don't follow. so you're saying that you're sure that there's no objectivity to beauty (i assume in music), but then you're also not quite sure?

 

[Nothinggod]

from what you say here, i understand that you think there is no fact of the matter about what is good or delicious but there is a fact of the matter about things having to do with chemistry. i agree with the latter part for sure. in the earlier post, i was trying to see which of the three positions outlined there (if any) is the best way to articulate what you and other people are saying about matters of taste.

I would say more that I believe that "fact" can be relatively applied where there are substancial cultural paradigms implied. In the field of music if we talk about diatonalism and diatonic theory, for example it is implicitly understood that we are referenceing a certain paradigm, that being evenly tempered chromaticism. This is not however the only paradigm. Which brings me to science. Scientifically the only absolute truth is the behaviour of energy and time and space relative to each other. We in our capacity can only measure the probability of these things relative to our existance. Having said that, objectivity can exist relative to what we have the capacity to know where we understand the implicit parameters of that objectivity.

 

[Nothinggod]

i don't follow. so you're saying that you're sure that there's no objectivity to beauty (i assume in music), but then you're also not quite sure?

No. I am not saying that. Though if I was, what of it? It's a pretty simple thing though. Objectivity and subjectivity are different. I the subject observe "beauty" in a way relative to me. The object I observe as beautiful is only so due to my personal sense of aesthetic.

 

[Manbient]

No. I am not saying that. Though if I was, what of it? It's a pretty simple thing though. Objectivity and subjectivity are different. I the subject observe "beauty" in a way relative to me. The object I observe as beautiful is only so due to my personal sense of aesthetic.

Does this mean that it's possible your "personal sense of aesthetic" can be made up of things that produce a somewhat objective result? Or is it completely "invisible" and unpredictable?

 

[Nothinggod]

The fact that I or anyone else produces a work that is based on their personal sense of aesthetic has nothing to do with how that work is viewed. The work itself is not subjective or objective in itself. Subjectivity and objectivity only apply to the observance of the work. I think you are on a wild goose chase here and I don't see how you can logically reconcile any inconsistency in my belief that a sense of aesthetic can't be objectively projected by any given work or object that is universal to the subject.

 

[Manbient]

The fact that I or anyone else produces a work that is based on their personal sense of aesthetic has nothing to do with how that work is viewed. The work itself is not subjective or objective in itself. Subjectivity and objectivity only apply to the observance of the work. I think you are on a wild goose chase here and I don't see how you can logically reconcile any incosistency in my belief that a sense of aesthetic can be objectively projected by any given work or object that is universal to the subject.

I think you misinterpreted what i wrote. I wasn't referring to the aeasthetic with which the work was created (though i think there's a lot still to be said there), i was trying to understand how you believe a personal sense of aesthetic is developed.

Here's what i believe. I believe there are objective truths to the interpretation of music... or more broadly, beauty. I think that everyone has their own personal sense of aesthetic, but this is built on much smaller and simpler building blocks, which DO have a more easily identifiable "direction" to them. What i mean is, there are certain ways of thinking that produce the same kind of feeling, and these thoughts can come about in different people in response to the same stimulus.

If there wasn't some level of objectivity to this, it seems peculiar that different people, with different experiences, in different parts of the world can feel the same way about a piece of music without ever talking to one another or sharing the same exact "personal sense of aesthetic". The likelihood of this "coincidence" happening so many times in so many ways is too unlikely. Why are so many people able to identify a piece of music (without lyric) as "sad"? or "happy"? What is indicating this to them? Why is that an indicator?