Comments by pk
Page 1 of 54 | Next
Posted on June 10 at 4:19 p.m.
there's a pope francis?
Posted on June 9 at 7:58 a.m.
hodgmo
I attempted a light joke that you fail to find amusing and also asked Tam, who says he has principles of beauty, to say what they are and how they fit certain examples. He didn’t seem to be offended by either the attempt at humor or the request, but you seem to find them so “abusive and dismissive” that they justify your abusing and dismissing me, who didn’t address them to you, by saying that either I have “a shallow and narrow understanding of beauty” or my examples are “imbalanced and poorly thought out” as well as being superficial, making “the value of further correspondence suspect,” since I add “nothing constructive to the dialog” and merely engage in “reflexive ad hominem and defensive posturing.” All this from someone who starts one post, “Let me see if I can simplify this for you.”
So let me see if I can simplify this for you. I said to Tam that since he, and not I, claimed to have principles of beauty, it was for him, not me, to say what such principles were. Your interpretation of this statement is bizarre. You call it an assertion that is "’just a private redefinition to suit your metaphysical presuppositions.’" And without any reason or discussion.”
What I have redefined? And how is asking for clarification of someone’s views so we can proceed with the discussion an example of suiting one’s “metaphysical presuppositions,” lacking a reason, and attempting to avoid discussion”? Why is that?
A particular writer, Tam, claimed to have unifying principles of beauty. I asked what they were, so we could examine their validity. If you would like to add something constructive and believe you can identify such principles, do tell. Simply adding further misreadings to your growing list of confusions isn’t working out.
Posted on June 8 at 6:57 p.m.
Hodgmo
My examples were of visual beauty because that was the main thrust of Tam’s effort to establish universal principles, not because I'm so crippled in experience and understanding that I believe that only the visual can provide the feeling of beauty. In addition, you dismiss my finding of beauty in a painting, a sunset, and the face of a loved one as being not just unclear – do you really not understand what it means for someone to say he was moved to pleasure by such things? -- but also as "superficial," compared, I supposed, to your deeper appreciations, against which, of course, I can offer no objective defense.
You ask what the items in your varied list of beautiful things have in common, and answer that maybe there are and maybe there aren't commonalities, and maybe they are and maybe they aren't objective, statements that need to be placed alongside your earlier approval of the vacuous assertion that "the presence of some display of harmony, intelligence, and genius" can serve to define beauty. It’s difficult to figure out just what useful point you believe you're making. You also fail to grasp that the dictionary definition you cite does not, as you think, suffer from this same type of question begging, in that it refers quite reasonably to the giving of pleasure, however conveyed, to an experiencing subject, without trying to list any specific qualities supposedly inhering in the pleasurable object or its creator.
It's quite a performance, and I hope it clarifies why you've yet to contribute anything to the conversation beyond an abusive and condescending tone.
Posted on June 8 at 7:35 a.m.
If finding beauty in art, nature, and another human being is superficial, it would be helpful to see examples of hodgmo's better-balanced, broader, and better-thought-out understanding. On the other hand, if "Beauty is what beauty does" is supposed to clarify the issues raised by Tam's comments, then the value of further correspondence would indeed be suspect.
Posted on June 7 at 12:33 p.m.
No, her collection of question-begging generalities doesn't do at all. To say that something is beautiful because of "some display of harmony, intelligence, and genius" is merely to give a list of words that in this context are essentially empty. It gets us no closer to what there is in that thing that makes that person react in that way.
Posted on June 7 at 10:01 a.m.
Since you're the one who claims to have principles of beauty, the challenge is for you, not someone who denies there are such universals, to identify the supposed commonalities in my examples and show how they follow from your principles.
As for your contention that "consciousness and judgments about beauty go hand in hand," that's something that needs to be shown, not just asserted, and needs in particular a discussion of "beauty" that isn't just a private redefinition to suit your metaphysical presuppositions.
Posted on June 7 at 7:06 a.m.
What do a painting by Ni Tsan, a sunset on a partly cloudy evening, and my wife have in common? Answer: I consider them all beautiful, a judgment unconnected to your so-called “principles” of beauty. As to how animals judge “beauty,” you would have to talk with them. Perhaps the Independent's Pet Psychic could help.
Posted on June 6 at 12:42 p.m.
I don't know about the restaurant, but the food on the terrace is is boring and overpriced.
And who designed the outfits the women employees have to wear? Think Amish meets Home Ec as passed through a corporate filter and you might have some idea of the horror.
Posted on May 11 at 9:24 a.m.
Without compromising your confidential sources, please provide the actual crime stats the city is lying to us about.
Page 1 of 54 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on June 18 at 9:14 p.m.
Although Dorothy's opinions are "perhaps" driven by bigotry and blind hatred of religion (just a guess on willy's part, but one he wants to make sure everyone hears, although he graciously acknowledges that he might be wrong), his views on the church are shared by "clear thinking people." How does one identify these "clear thinking people"? Why, they just happen to be people who agree with Willy. What a fortunate coincidence.
On Starshine and the Pope