There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:33 pm You're arguing an argumentum ad populum. Convention, cultural acceptance, etc. doesn't make something the case (aside from it being a fact that it's a convention or that it's culturally accepted).
Everything that preceded the "aside from..." is special pleading.

Apparently you care about fallacies. Just not enough to avoid committing them youreslf.

Philosophicus Retardicus strikes again!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:33 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:06 pm Peter Holmes,
criterion
/krʌɪˈtɪərɪən/
noun
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.
"they award a green label to products that meet certain environmental criteria"
Similar:
basis
point of reference
standard
norm
yardstick
benchmark
touchstone
test
formula
measure
gauge
scale
barometer
indicator
litmus test
specification
guide
guideline
guiding principle
principle
rule
law
canon
convention
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Whether abortion is right or wrong is subject to a criterion or several criteria.

Ethicists study criteria that apply to questions that are considered to be 'moral' questions. A woman has the same rights as a man over her body is one criterion and you can see criteria themselves may be subject to higher order criteria.
What are culturally taken to be 'matters of fact' are also subject to criteria which in this scientific age are "is it falsifiable?" and "Is there evidence?"
What are culturally accepted as 'aesthetic ' questions are subject to aesthetic criteria such as "Is the symbolism new or derivative?"?" or " Has it classical proportions?"?"
You're arguing an argumentum ad populum. Convention, cultural acceptance, etc. doesn't make something the case (aside from it being a fact that it's a convention or that it's culturally accepted).
I am arguing that all criteria are subject to cultural norms.

I am not arguing that because criteria are cultural norms it follows they are absolutely true; that would indeed be a false argument.

There is nothing that is absolutely the case except, I would argue,the transcendent virtues of truth with regard to scientific criteria, beauty with regard to aesthetic criteria, and good with regard to moral criteria.

Edited:
In this connection I think 'transcendental' may be a better word than 'transcendent'.

E.g. John Keats:
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”.
Others would argue truth is the best access way to the other two. Yet others argue good is the best access way to the other two.
Along with his countrymen Coleridge and Wordsworth, Carlyle embraced a “natural supernaturalism,” the view that nature, including human beings, has the power and authority traditionally attributed to an independent deity.
(extract from Stamford Dictionary article)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:45 am There is nothing that is absolutely the case except, I would argue,the transcendent virtues of truth with regard to scientific criteria, beauty with regard to aesthetic criteria, and good with regard to moral criteria.
Aren't those all sort of tautologous? The search for scientific legend wouldn't make a lot of sense by definition.

Even in those expressions of the arts which extoll something other than traditional beauty (nasty sounding noise rock by Einstürzende Neubauten and Throbbing Gristle for instance, or "vomit painter" Millie Brown) always gets explained in terms of finding hidden beauty because beauty is pretty much the definition an aesthetic criteria and none of these odd performers has ever to my knowledge actually gone so far as to lay no claim to it.

A primary reason to discard morality-proper has long been that it's the sort of thing that has to be labelled with that "I'm the rel thing" -proper tag precisely because it is so fake as to not include "Right and Wrong" (it has some negative description of "good", which just means some miniaturised percentage of evilness but that's by-the-by)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belinda wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:45 am I am arguing that all criteria are subject to cultural norms.
You'd agree that criteria are not necessarily cultural norms, though?
There is nothing that is absolutely the case except,
Don't you think that states of affairs are "absolutely the case" from a particular reference frame/reference point, at least?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:58 pm Don't you think that states of affairs are "absolutely the case" from a particular reference frame/reference point, at least?
When you equivocate "absolutely" to allow for as many absolutes as there are reference frames, when you make the absolute non-absolute then sure!

This is absolutely red from one perspective, absolutely green from another, absolutely blue from a third and absolutely black from a fourth.

red.png
red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1322 times
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:45 am There is nothing that is absolutely the case except, I would argue,the transcendent virtues of truth with regard to scientific criteria, beauty with regard to aesthetic criteria, and good with regard to moral criteria.
Aren't those all sort of tautologous? The search for scientific legend wouldn't make a lot of sense by definition.

Even in those expressions of the arts which extoll something other than traditional beauty (nasty sounding noise rock by Einstürzende Neubauten and Throbbing Gristle for instance, or "vomit painter" Millie Brown) always gets explained in terms of finding hidden beauty because beauty is pretty much the definition an aesthetic criteria and none of these odd performers has ever to my knowledge actually gone so far as to lay no claim to it.

A primary reason to discard morality-proper has long been that it's the sort of thing that has to be labelled with that "I'm the rel thing" -proper tag precisely because it is so fake as to not include "Right and Wrong" (it has some negative description of "good", which just means some miniaturised percentage of evilness but that's by-the-by)
That science, besides a truth, sometimes indicates a beauty and a goodness does not surprise me. Similarly if you rearrange the three elements in the transcendental trinity. Artistic idioms that feel ugly may still express truth or good. I don't know the artists you mention however I guess none of them goes to the trouble of making art unless the art they make means something to the artist.

There is one exception to my faith in artists, scientists, and ethicists : if the intention of the maker is solely commercial or political they are liars all three. Con men not to be trusted. Intention is key. If you were to convince me this Throbbing Gristle fellow's intention is to say a truth about the human condition or about nature ,however trivial , I will respect his work even although I might not enjoy it.

And if a politician spoke in the most emotive language solely to catch votes I'd call her a liar. But if a comedian or a clown uses ugly images, sarcasm, or irony with the intention of pointing to a truth I'd respect her.
Post Reply