I just realized that all value judgments are really moral judgments in disguise. If I say "the rolling stones are a good band" it means "i think they embody/represent something that is morally correct." It illuminates why taste is so divisive.

Thoughts?

Quote
Send It To me
I just realized that all value judgments are really moral judgments in disguise. If I say "the rolling stones are a good band" it means "i think they embody/represent something that is morally correct." It illuminates why taste is so divisive.

Thoughts?

This is a bit "heavy" don't you think ? This is an RS hangout for obsessives ... !!

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Send It To me
I just realized that all value judgments are really moral judgments in disguise. If I say "the rolling stones are a good band" it means "i think they embody/represent something that is morally correct." It illuminates why taste is so divisive.

Thoughts?

This is a bit "heavy" don't you think ? This is an RS hangout for obsessives ... !!

anti-intellectualism is also a value judgment, one I disagree with.

Your initial statement is total and utter nonsense, so it's a bit bloody rich hurling an accusation of "anti intellectualism" around. Think about it. You say "I think the Rolling Stones are a good band", it's actually one hell of an assumption (a completely incorrect one as it happens) that ANYONE in their right mind is going to interpret that as meaning that in your opinion that they embody/represent something that is morally good. What they ARE likely to interpret your statement as meaning is that you think they SOUND GREAT, an entirely different and more simplistic issue altogether.

With all due repsect, don't be so arrogant, and don't try to be so intellectually snobbish, it doesn't suit you, indeed it doesn't suit anyone that tries it on ........

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
paulywaul
Your initial statement is total and utter nonsense, so it's a bit bloody rich hurling an accusation of "anti intellectualism" around. Think about it. You say "I think the Rolling Stones are a good band", it's actually one hell of an assumption (a completely incorrect one as it happens) that ANYONE in their right mind is going to interpret that as meaning that in your opinion that they embody/represent something that is morally good. What they ARE likely to interpret your statement as meaning is that you think they SOUND GREAT, an entirely different and more simplistic issue altogether.

With all due repsect, don't be so arrogant, and don't try to be so intellectually snobbish, it doesn't suit you, indeed it doesn't suit anyone that tries it on ........

lets analyze why this upsets you so much

So you're saying that one's tastes are a representation of one's code of ethics? I can think of many examples which contradict that.

Personally, I can think of several aspects of both Mick's and Keith's character and actions that I find morally reprehensible but that doesn't preclude my thinking they produce good music.

There is a contradiction in the original proposition, in that it at first mentions
the very special kind of value judgement called "obsession" and then wildly
generalizes to "all value judgements".

If we revise the original statement to be something like, "an obsession with an
artist is a type of moral judgement", its much harder to argue with.

And its not that every specific little action of the obsessed-over artist
meets with your moral approval, but that overall there is something very
admirable for you about how they've gone about living their lives, at least
during the time they produced the art you're so obsessed by. If for no other reason
than it allowed them to get at that art.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-17 01:46 by superrevvy.

Interesting topic, Send it to me. Axel Hägerström regarded all value judgements as mere emotional expressions. He also said that moral judgements are cognitively meaningless; they cannot be true or false as they always involve a feeling. This was later labeled as Value nihilism by professor Ingemar Hedenius.

When I listen to my favorite music or enjoying great art, I do not feel that I am making moral judgements.

saying they're a "good band" or "great band" means you like their music, and has nothing to do with subscribing to their way of life, despite what Andrew Loog Oldham tried to say in the 60's

I don't mean them personally as much as the music. I think you're saying things like you should have a healthy anti-authoritarian streak without being too righteous about it, that a person can be overly dutiful, that the persuit of pleasure and power can be a virtue in and of itself, and that dose of self-interest is a good and healthy thing when combined with a soft spot.

Stoneage - happiness is itself an emotion and, while it might not be proveable as correct, it is, even though an emotion, hugely important worth pursuing with gusto

Quote
riverrat
saying they're a "good band" or "great band" means you like their music, and has nothing to do with subscribing to their way of life, despite what Andrew Loog Oldham tried to say in the 60's

saying you like something or that its "good" is certainly not an obsession.

to put it more personally, I have been obsessed with a total of three artists
during my life: The Rolling Stones, Bob Marley, and Rihanna. And there is
absolutely no doubt that I am making a positive moral judgement about all three,
as a part of my aesthetic appreciation of them.

Is there anybody who can name an artist that they have been absolutely obsessed
with, and who did not find that artist to be very admirable during the time
you were obsessed with them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-17 02:02 by superrevvy.

"Music, for Schopenhauer, was the purest form of art because it was the one that depicted the will itself without it appearing as subject to the Principle of Sufficient Grounds, therefore as an individual object. According to Daniel Albright, "Schopenhauer thought that music was the only art that did not merely copy ideas, but actually embodied the will itself." Source: Daniel Albright, Modernism and Music, 2004, page 39, footnote 34.

There are numerous musical artists that I enjoy atremendously, including the Rolling Stones, but I don't believe that I am obsessed by them.

In my life and career, I have attended some 3,000 musical performances and spent hundreds of hours at rehearsals and in recording studios. I love music as much ntoday as I ever did.

Still, I do feel that trying to maintain some balance in life is worthwhile.

Quote
stonesrule
There are numerous musical artists that I enjoy atremendously, including the Rolling Stones, but I don't believe that I am obsessed by them.

In my life and career, I have attended some 3,000 musical performances and spent hundreds of hours at rehearsals and in recording studios. I love music as much ntoday as I ever did.

Still, I do feel that trying to maintain some balance in life is worthwhile.

i can only see two reasons to hang around IORR. Either youre obsessed with them,
whether you admit it or not, or you receive some form of compensation to do so

this week's billboard:

"Hang around"? "Obsessed"? "Compensation"?

Interesting insight into YOUR values.

For the record, I've been a member of this forum for six or seven years.
I am a fan of the Rolling Stones music.

Quote
stonesrule
I am a fan of the Rolling Stones music.

that's interesting because i can't recall even one post of yours that displays
even a remotely fanatical attitude towards their music.

the only thing i've noticed fanatical about you is you being fanatically prissy
about other people's posts