Each Decades Mount Rushmore

[Hippasus]

And I'm explaining why I don't see how it is clearly an objective claim. All you said about 4 was that it's clearly objective and that implies arrogance.

If you say making an objective claim is arrogant, that is itself an objective claim and, perhaps, an arrogant claim. This is the reason:

"I believe the middle of this paragraph contains an assertion of the form: 'if there is an x-claim, then that x is a y-claim'. In this case, 'x' is being 'objective', and 'y' is being considered to be an arrogant claim. Ironically, this statement of your's is both an objective and, perhaps, somewhat of an arrogant claim. I do not see how it is not outright an objective claim."

 

[Philly85*]

ATCQ should be on the 1990s music list

As much as I love em, they weren't in the same stratosphere as Pac or Biggie and to an extent, even Nas.

 

[Shareefruck]

If you say making an objective claim is arrogant, that is itself an objective claim and, perhaps, an arrogant claim. This is the reason:

"I believe the middle of this paragraph contains an assertion of the form: 'if there is an x-claim, then that x is a y-claim'. In this case, 'x' is being 'objective', and 'y' is being considered to be an arrogant claim. Ironically, this statement of your's is both an objective and, perhaps, somewhat of an arrogant claim. I do not see how it is not outright an objective claim."

Seriously, that was what you were getting at?

If I were to make a confrontational objective claim about something based solely on personal preferences/subjective value judgements and my instinctive impression of what feels true to me, without informing any of that with any evidence, I would consider myself to be behaving arrogantly, which I didn't want to do.

You're saying that in a roundabout way, simply by suggesting this, I'm also dismissing as arrogant any other objective claim that, unlike what I'm doing, could be reasonably backed up by evidence, and that this, in itself is arrogant of me to say?

**** me. I realize I'm not super careful about my phrasing all the time, but this is getting stupid.

I think you're ignoring the context that the first part of that quote implies-- I'm "claiming" that it would be arrogant on those grounds (the statement being that "making active/confrontational objective claims without objective reasoning is arrogant"). Yes, technically this is absolutely still an objective claim, but it's one where I think the required rationale behind it is pretty intuitive and accepted-- If that is still considered arrogant, then I'm happy to be and continue to be guilty of that degree of arrogance.

And remember, I'm not saying that I'm not making any objective claims-- I'm saying I'm not making any objective claims about the correct evaluation of music. I am, however, making objective claims about logic/arguments, but those comments, I'm backing up with reason.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I will avoid 2010s for now, there is always enough time to remove someone from the list or add on.

For 2000s, pretty tough and loose but here is my personal top 4:

1. Thom York/Radiohead (Kid A, In Rainbows)
2. Justin Timberlake (Triple threat superstar)
3. Gabe Newell/Valve (Steam, Half-Life 2, Portal)
4. GWB (Left Hand Right Hand, Fool Me Twice)

I think that covers it for me. 90s were..........not a good time for me in retrospect.

 

[Hippasus]

Seriously, that was what you were getting at?

If I were to make a confrontational objective claim about something based solely on personal preferences/subjective value judgements and my instinctive impression of what feels true to me, without informing any of that with any evidence, I would consider myself to be behaving arrogantly, which I didn't want to do.

You're saying that in a roundabout way, simply by suggesting this, I'm also dismissing as arrogant any other objective claim that, unlike what I'm doing, could be reasonably backed up by evidence, and that this, in itself is arrogant of me to say?

**** me. I realize I'm not super careful about my phrasing all the time, but this is getting stupid.

I think you're ignoring the context that the first part of that quote implies-- I'm "claiming" that it would be arrogant on those grounds (the statement being that "making active/confrontational objective claims without objective reasoning is arrogant"). Yes, technically this is absolutely still an objective claim, but it's one where I think the required rationale behind it is pretty intuitive and accepted-- If that is still considered arrogant, then I'm happy to be and continue to be guilty of that degree of arrogance.

And remember, I'm not saying that I'm not making any objective claims-- I'm saying I'm not making any objective claims about the correct evaluation of music. I am, however, making objective claims about logic/arguments, but those comments, I'm backing up with reason.

Re: the first bold directly above: I don't see what I'm ignoring for (4). I quoted your entire post for that in post 44. Re: the second bold directly above: You have quotation marks there, but from where is that quote coming? I can't find that elsewhere in this thread, and like I just said, (4) was quoted in full by me in post 44.

 

[Shareefruck]

You quoted it, but you didn't take the context into consideration when deriving meaning from the middle part. Instead you broke it down in isolation.

"It's something that I personally and instinctively feel is true, informed by what things I myself find valuable/important/effective/impressive, with my flawed perceptions and everything, yes--but I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective "claim" that I think someone should concede to-- only then does something demand backing up. I think there's an important difference there."

"But I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective claim."
not "But I'm not so arrogant to present an objective claim".

"That" referring to the decidedly non-objectively-informed perception described in the first part. The statement is a clear continuation of the premise that was first laid out. And then I immediately follow that up with "only then does something demand backing up", which could only make sense if I'm suggesting that the charge would only stand if there were insufficient evidence and would be absolved if there was.

I think that's pretty clear-cut. I don't know how you would read that and think that I'm condemning the existence of ALL objective claims full stop, no matter how they're presented.

 

[Hippasus]

You quoted it, but you didn't take the context into consideration when deriving meaning from the middle part in isolation.

"It's something that I personally and instinctively feel is true, informed by what things I myself find valuable/important/effective/impressive, with my flawed perceptions and everything, yes--but I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective "claim" that I think someone should concede to-- only then does something demand backing up. I think there's an important difference there."

"But I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective claim."
not "But I'm not so arrogant to present an objective claim".

"That" referring to the decidedly non-objectively-informed perception described in the first part. The statement is a clear continuation of the premise that was first laid out. And then I immediately follow that up with "only then does something demand backing up", which could only make sense if I'm suggesting that the charge would only stand if there were no evidence and would be absolved if there was.

I think that's pretty clear-cut. I don't know how you would read that and think that I'm condemning the existence of ALL objective claims full stop, no matter how they're presented. Did you think I was looking for an excuse to take a random shot at people who look at music through an objective lens or something?

The qualification that I bolded is the crucial part for you, but I don't see how I, or anyone else, is supposed to know that that eliminates the claim that objective claims about the quality of music are not considered arrogant full-stop by you. That is why I focused on the part that I did. You're now saying that the bolded qualifies your claim that if an objective claim about the quality of music is made, that it is then arrogant, but I would never know what you were qualifying such a claim if you weren't presently saying that. So in conclusion, if you say so.

 

[Shareefruck]

The qualification that I bolded is the crucial part for you, but I don't see how I, or anyone else, is supposed to know that that eliminates the claim that objective claims about the quality of music are not considered arrogant full-stop by you. That is why I focused on the part that I did. You're now saying that the bolded qualifies your claim that if an objective claim about the quality of music is made, that it is then arrogant, but I would never know what you were qualifying such a claim if you weren't presently saying that. So in conclusion, if you say so.

If the thing immediately following the statement doesn't give you the hint (I think it should), the premise leading up to the statement unquestionably and directly does.

I described an impression as being informed strictly by subjective feelings, even calling it flawed, and then stated that taking that and turning it into an objective claim is arrogant.

What more is needed?

 

[Hippasus]

If the thing immediately following the statement doesn't give you the hint (I think it should), the premise leading up to the statement unquestionably and directly does.

I described an impression as being informed strictly by subjective feelings and stated that taking that and turning it into an objective claim is arrogant.

What more is needed?

I disagree on that.

 

[Shareefruck]

Edit: Nevermind. Probably not a good idea to plant the seeds of a new long-winded argument after that crazy long one looks like it's coming to an end.

 

[Player big P]

I don't know why I ever click on threads like this, seeing as I hate everyone's taste in everything

 

[NyQuil]

Every ****ing thread devolves into a debate about the proper way to appreciate or assess an artform.

 

[Xelebes]

Every ****ing thread devolves into a debate about the proper way to appreciate or assess an artform.

True and they miss the whole point of the conversation: who are you going to put on the pedestal that is Mount Rushmore and what do you want those on the pedestal to represent?

 

[Know Your Enemy]

That argument should be carved into a mountain

 

[Hippasus]

True and they miss the whole point of the conversation: who are you going to put on the pedestal that is Mount Rushmore and what do you want those on the pedestal to represent?

It's a debate about what we wanted to debate about, it is not supposed to represent anything about this thread in a general way. I gave my personal Mount Trashmore during it.

 

[Shareefruck]

Why did you call it Mount Trashmore when it was all stuff that you liked anyways?

 

[Hippasus]

Why did you call it Mount Trashmore when it was all stuff that you liked anyways?

There was a place called that where I had a memory burned into my mind. I was reading something from Plato (perhaps The Republic) and got stoned one night on top of it by myself. I think I was in high school and during the time that I wanted to study philosophy for a long time. It was a dark and pleasant late evening. I think it was during the summer. So I wanted to make my list personal and play on my ambivalence toward the United States as filtered through that particular monument. I feel like the artists wouldn't be against it, but I obviously don't know much about that. Thanks for asking.