Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's tautological to argue that axiological properties can be measured by monetary value.
When artwork is appraised for monetary value, all you are doing is comparing one axiological property with another. That is irrespective of whether the value of money is established by fiat, gold standard or promissory contract, given that none of these properties are reducible to empirical measurements. The monetary value of art is also influenced by factors other than aesthetics.
There are no direct measures of political power, at least of the type that you imply. The best you have are indirect measures such as public polling and surveys. Quantitative studies show only part of the picture and, even then, are prone to large margins of error.
I should add, you don't need to be a subjectivist to think that aesthetics is irreducible to empirical measurements.
You can be an objectivist on beauty, rejecting the notion that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and still think the same.
Large government size and generous welfare systems are generally associated with the political left.
I have drawn an inference from the exchange model that isn't stated explicitly by its authors, as you correctly point out, and that is based upon the premise that political views have quasi-religious properties that can be polarizing and divisive.
If you want to prove my conclusions about secular cultures to be wrong, there are two approaches you could try.
1. Showing the premise to be wrong, which is probably a waste of time given that it's a truism.
2. Showing that my conclusion doesn't follow the premises, which is what I recommend you try.
I'm not surprised you introduce the ins-and-outs that establish monetary value, but really? This also does not mean we can't quantify what we're talking about, and/or since you are certainly not inclined to provide measure or quantification with respect to what you are talking about, either you don't really know what you are talking about, or we accept you are simply talking about your opinion based on some nebulous sense of what you are talking about. What you think is going on around you.
One thing you can be sure to know. I don't waste time proving a premise or conclusion is wrong when they are "truisms." I'm not as dumb as you seem to think I am...
Might as well ask me to play the game of tossing a coin after you explain the rules are heads you win, tails I lose.
Large government size and generous welfare systems are generally associated with the political left.
Mostly true far as lots of people are concerned. Though I can think of a few different better ways to describe what is the political left in these regards, I know better than to think the effort is anything but wasted key strokes. I should like to add however...
Where you go with these "truisms" as if somehow they prove all your further notions about what is secularism, leftist and/or "religion-like," tends to be less the "proof" you seem to imagine.
I'm not surprised you introduce the ins-and-outs that establish monetary value, but really? This also does not mean we can't quantify what we're talking about, and/or since you are certainly not inclined to provide measure or quantification with respect to what you are talking about, either you don't really know what you are talking about, or we accept you are simply talking about your opinion based on some nebulous sense of what you are talking about. What you think is going on around you.
Let's try another approach then, and still feel if you think the same.
The main point here is that a quantitative comparison between two axiological properties is a waste of time.
When you appraise the monetary value of a work of art, purely based on its beauty, you are comparing the following:
1. The value of the aesthetic qualities of the work of art.
2. The value of a population's trust in its government and institutions.
There's no way to size up two axiological qualities like this using a reproducible system of quantification.
What ultimately sets the price-tag on art is the dynamics of supply and demand, which may reflect aesthetic quality to some degree, but is heavily influenced by cultural and individual biases and other non-aesthetic variables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
One thing you can be sure to know.I don't waste time proving a premise or conclusion is wrong when they are "truisms." I'm not as dumb as you seem to think I am...
Might as well ask me to play the game of tossing a coin after you explain the rules are heads you win, tails I lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Mostly true far as lots of people are concerned. Though I can think of a few different better ways to describe what is the political left in these regards, I know better than to think the effort is anything but wasted key strokes. I should like to add however...
Where you go with these "truisms" as if somehow they prove all your further notions about what is secularism, leftist and/or "religion-like," tends to be less the "proof" you seem to imagine.
As you wish. Here's the full form of the argument that gets us from P to Q.
Study observation: Big government is associated with less adherence to traditional religion. Exchange model: Politics supplants traditional religion under big government.
Premise 1: Politics supplants traditional religion under big government (exchange model). Premise 2: Politics has axiological properties in the form of commitments, values and duties. Conclusion: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under big government.
Premise 1: Big government is associated with more politically left-leaning populations. Premise 2: Big government is associated with less adherence to traditional religion (study observation). Premise 3: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under big government. Conclusion: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under more secular, politically left-leaning populations.
Your complaint about truisms concerns the premise in blue. You can try disproving it, though I don't think you'll get very far.
The conclusion in green is probably a better bet as the object of your criticism.
Let's try another approach then, and still feel if you think the same.
The main point here is that a quantitative comparison between two axiological properties is a waste of time.
When you appraise the monetary value of a work of art, purely based on its beauty, you are comparing the following:
1. The value of the aesthetic qualities of the work of art.
2. The value of a population's trust in its government and institutions.
There's no way to size up two axiological qualities like this using a reproducible system of quantification.
What ultimately sets the price-tag on art is the dynamics of supply and demand, which may reflect aesthetic quality to some degree, but is heavily influenced by cultural and individual biases and other non-aesthetic variables.
As you wish. Here's the full form of the argument that gets us from P to Q.
Study observation: Big government is associated with less adherence to traditional religion. Exchange model: Politics supplants traditional religion under big government.
Premise 1: Politics supplants traditional religion under big government (exchange model). Premise 2: Politics has axiological properties in the form of commitments, values and duties. Conclusion: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under big government.
Premise 1: Big government is associated with more politically left-leaning populations. Premise 2: Big government is associated with less adherence to traditional religion (study observation). Premise 3: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under big government. Conclusion: Axiological commitments to politics supplant traditional religion under more secular, politically left-leaning populations.
Your complaint about truisms concerns the premise in blue. You can try disproving it, though I don't think you'll get very far.
The conclusion in green is probably a better bet as the object of your criticism.
I am a sucker for good reason and logic, and your effort here is appreciated and intriguing, but I must be honest...
I am simply not inclined to banter about these sorts of generalities, latitudes and platitudes of philosophy that can go on forever. Perhaps better to focus on what is NOT a waste of time far as you are concerned rather than wrangle about what can or cannot be quantified, for example.
Less waste of time far as I'm concerned is to be specific about whatever it is you are wanting to communicate or advocate, about public policy, secularism, theology, ideology, whatever.
What's the beef? Specifically? The right or wrong about politics in America for example (the general topic of this thread). With our government. With our political system. With progressive thinking...
I am a sucker for good reason and logic, and your effort here is appreciated and intriguing, but I must be honest...
I am simply not inclined to banter about these sorts of generalities, latitudes and platitudes of philosophy that can go on forever. Perhaps better to focus on what is NOT a waste of time far as you are concerned rather than wrangle about what can or cannot be quantified, for example.
Less waste of time far as I'm concerned is to be specific about whatever it is you are wanting to communicate or advocate, about public policy, secularism, theology, ideology, whatever.
What's the beef? Specifically? The right or wrong about politics in America for example (the general topic of this thread). With our government. With our political system. With progressive thinking...
Right. Where to begin?
I'm not really here for any agenda aside from to learn what people are thinking.
Personally, I'm pretty happy with the general direction the country is headed in. I quite like the POTUS. I think his heart is in the right place and that he's doing his best despite everyone else trying to make his life as hard as possible.
For someone with my world view, I think it's actually a pretty exciting time.
I'm not really here for any agenda aside from to learn what people are thinking.
Personally, I'm pretty happy with the general direction the country is headed in. I quite like the POTUS. I think his heart is in the right place and that he's doing his best despite everyone else trying to make his life as hard as possible.
For someone with my world view, I think it's actually a pretty exciting time.
For someone with my world view, too bad there are still people who share yours...
How would you think in the event that conservatism moves from counterculture to mainstream?
There's little evidence that people are going back to church. The Christian Right's current attempt to force this country into a tyrannical fundamentalist theocracy, should it not be successful, is going to be the end for right-wing Christianity in the USA. Younger generations aren't buying this "Trump is chosen by God to end abortion and gay rights" narrative.
However, with the way things are going, we may not have a choice.
Politics has replaced religion in many people's lives. Religion was useful in that it allowed people to be tribal in a largely theoretical domain. Sure, there were always elements of theocracy, but in the US at least these weakened as a place became more diverse.
Politics, on the other hand, is very powerful in the here and now. And now it's infused with religious fervor. Yuck!
We need religion to make a comeback so that people put their negative energies there. Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Gaia, Sinatra... I don't care who you worship.
I just want the zealots out of public affairs.
We need to total reformation of our political landscape. Two parties need to kick the bucket and be replaced.
The Democrat party is utterly toxic and out to destroy America as it is now. Their brown-shirt tactics and racist policies are beyond redemption.
The GOP is too lame to serve as either a check or balance to the other party.
Both need to go..... far, far away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
