Wedding.

[Terrapin Station]

And some musicians really are better than others.

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

[thedoc]

And some musicians really are better than others.

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

So according to you, either you are a musician or you aren't. And if you are, you can play or sing really well, and if you don't play or sing so well, then you aren't a musician. Tell us, are you a musician? And yes, better or worse are subjective, but we live in a subjective world, everything is someones subjective opinion.

[Terrapin Station]

And some musicians really are better than others.

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

So according to you, either you are a musician or you aren't. And if you are, you can play really well, and if you don't play so well, then you aren't a musician.

I thought I saw some posts of yours that suggested you had some familiarity with academic philosophy, which would imply that you have some adeptness with logic.

From where in my comments would you be inferring that I'd say, "If you're a musician, you can play really well"?

[thedoc]

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

So according to you, either you are a musician or you aren't. And if you are, you can play really well, and if you don't play so well, then you aren't a musician.

I thought I saw some posts of yours that suggested you had some familiarity with academic philosophy, which would imply that you have some adeptness with logic.

From where in my comments would you be inferring that I'd say, "If you're a musician, you can play really well"?

When you posted that one musician is not better than another. That makes it an "either / or" judgement.

[Terrapin Station]

When you posted that one musician is not better than another. That makes it an "either / or" judgement.

But I didn't say that. I said they're not really--that is, factually or objectively--better than another. vegetariantaxidermy had said, "some musicians REALLY are better than others."

It's a subjective judgment--I explicitly said that. No one said that we do not make subjective judgments. It's just that those judgments are not right or wrong, true or false. They're not factual. They're how we feel. There's a fact that we feel however we do, "Joe feels that x is better than y," but there are no facts to the effect of "x is better than y."

[thedoc]

When you posted that one musician is not better than another. That makes it an "either / or" judgement.

But I didn't say that. I said they're not really--that is, factually or objectively--better than another. vegetariantaxidermy had said, "some musicians REALLY are better than others."

It's a subjective judgment--I explicitly said that. No one said that we do not make subjective judgments. It's just that those judgments are not right or wrong, true or false. They're not factual. They're how we feel. There's a fact that we feel however we do, "Joe feels that x is better than y," but there are no facts to the effect of "x is better than y."

VT posted that "And some musicians really are better than others."

And you replied "No they're not. Better/worse are subjective."

You Disagreed with VT that some musicians are better than others, and you did not use the word "really". But if you ask a musician, they will tell you that other musicians are better than they are. It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others, but anyone who plays or preforms music is a musician, and some are objectively better than others, it's not a matter of subjective judgement. It is subjective when I say I don't like a particular song or piece of music, even if the musicians are very good at preforming the music, that is subjective.

[thedoc]

TS, are you a musician?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And some musicians really are better than others.

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

Like I said, so-called 'relativists' are the most annoying pricks on the planet--you can't reason with someone who has no opinion on anything .

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When you posted that one musician is not better than another. That makes it an "either / or" judgement.

But I didn't say that. I said they're not really--that is, factually or objectively--better than another. vegetariantaxidermy had said, "some musicians REALLY are better than others."

It's a subjective judgment--I explicitly said that. No one said that we do not make subjective judgments. It's just that those judgments are not right or wrong, true or false. They're not factual. They're how we feel. There's a fact that we feel however we do, "Joe feels that x is better than y," but there are no facts to the effect of "x is better than y."

VT posted that "And some musicians really are better than others."

And you replied "No they're not. Better/worse are subjective."

You Disagreed with VT that some musicians are better than others, and you did not use the word "really". But if you ask a musician, they will tell you that other musicians are better than they are. It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others, but anyone who plays or preforms music is a musician, and some are objectively better than others, it's not a matter of subjective judgement. It is subjective when I say I don't like a particular song or piece of music, even if the musicians are very good at preforming the music, that is subjective.

Very well put.

[Terrapin Station]

VT posted that "And some musicians really are better than others."

And you replied "No they're not. Better/worse are subjective."

You Disagreed with VT that some musicians are better than others, and you did not use the word "really".

I didn't retype the entire sentence I was disagreeing with, correct. I quoted the sentence instead, and in response said, "No they're not." What am I saying "No they're not" in response to? I'm saying it in response to the sentence, "Some musicians really are better than others"--that's why I quoted that sentence. You do not need to retype the whole sentence there. The way that English works is that if someone says, "Some musicians are really better than others" and you response with "No they're not," it's implied that you'd more verbosely be saying "No they're not really better than others."

Do you understand that much before we move on to the next part?

(And by the way, I am a musician. I've made my living as a musician for my entire life. I've been a musician for almost 50 years. And I have graduate degrees in both music and philosophy.)

[Terrapin Station]

And some musicians really are better than others.

No they're not. Better/worse are subjective.

Like I said, so-called 'relativists' are the most annoying pricks on the planet--you can't reason with someone who has no opinion on anything .

Lord knows how you came to believe that being a relativist equates to not having an opinion on anything.

The idea that I'd not have an opinion on anything makes no sense anyway, since I've been expressing a lot of opinions, including, "Musicians are not really (as in factually, objectively) better or worse than each other."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The idea that I'd not have an opinion on anything makes no sense anyway, since I've been expressing a lot of opinions, including, "Musicians are not really (as in factually, objectively) better or worse than each other."

Well it's a bloody stupid opinion, and if you were really a musician you would know that.

[Terrapin Station]

The idea that I'd not have an opinion on anything makes no sense anyway, since I've been expressing a lot of opinions, including, "Musicians are not really (as in factually, objectively) better or worse than each other."

Well it's a bloody stupid opinion, and if you were really a musician you would know that.

I'd say it's rather stupid to believe in objective value assessments a la good/bad, better/worse, etc.

There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world (and not just in the realm of aesthetics, but in any realm).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The idea that I'd not have an opinion on anything makes no sense anyway, since I've been expressing a lot of opinions, including, "Musicians are not really (as in factually, objectively) better or worse than each other."

Well it's a bloody stupid opinion, and if you were really a musician you would know that.

I'd say it's rather stupid to believe in objective value assessments a la good/bad, better/worse, etc.

There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world (and not just in the realm of aesthetics, but in any realm).

Doc just explained it to you. A philosophy degree doesn't bestow common sense or intelligence. Quite the opposite, I've found. If you think all musicians/artists/doctors/lawyers/teachers/cleaners are the same and none have more talent, ability and skill then any other then good for you. I'm sure you sill keep that in mind when you need heart surgery.

[Terrapin Station]

Well it's a bloody stupid opinion, and if you were really a musician you would know that.

I'd say it's rather stupid to believe in objective value assessments a la good/bad, better/worse, etc.

There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world (and not just in the realm of aesthetics, but in any realm).

Doc just explained it to you. A philosophy degree doesn't bestow common sense or intelligence. Quite the opposite, I've found.

How would you support that some skills are objectively better than other skills and not just skills that one prefers? People objectively have different abilities. What, objectively, makes one ability better than another?