This discussion screams Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to me. The question in that book that comes up again and again is, "What is Quality?" The guy who wrote the book only seemed to get more and more confused as he went on but it's a good exercise to try to get at that question.

I agree with you that it is common for people to discuss things without having an agreed upon standard of reference. A part of that is the discovery process but too much of it comes from not being clear at that start. I'm always looking for a theme. A discussion ought to have a clear theme.

More examples of this would help out. From my experience, when I talk politics (I rarely do anymore) I'll be trying to hit on a theme (e.g., the principle of free markets/private property) and my standard is simply that bottom line principle. But often, the person I'm talking to appears to be concerned primarily with how they feel regarding a specific issue like immigration or property taxes or whatever. My reason for not discussing politics is that there is no focus on a central theme.

That said, is the Whyte guy saying that all discussion has to be this way existentially? That human communication is necessarily flawed? Because that is a very different thing from saying that most people are unwilling, but able, to focus on a central theme.

Speaking of intrinsicism, I notice that nobody has attached a "for whom?" clause to any of the "x is better than y" talk, though Lindsay comes close. It's good to make these things explicit.

Not all standards are reasonable, but many are, and all that we can ask is that one's standards fall within that range. Is complexity inherently better than simplicity? Not necessarily. If someone has a poor ear for music, simplicity would be more pleasurable for them than complexity; and assuming that they, for some reason, couldn't improve their ear for music, preferring complex music would not even be a reasonable option for them.

In such a case, I don't see a problem with saying it's a matter of opinion. One thing is better for one person, another is better for the next - because they are different people with different experiences, different ears, different brains. I like pizza, someone else likes haggis. Why quibble with another person's taste buds? Saying it's a matter of opinion doesn't mean tossing all standards out the window, it simply recognizes that in some cases people have good reasons for preferring different things.

I should add that I'm not trying to refute the example you gave regarding the evaluation of a person's character, Marcus, which you correctly identify as not being a matter of opinion. Rather, I'm pointing out that the general conclusion isn't justified.

On another topic: Lance, I don't know of a word for it, but how about "Deja Vucabulary"? (Feel free to hold your nose and run screaming away from the screen.)

Marcus, I haven't forgotten this thread. I just haven't had time to work it out.

...to make myself clearer.

Maybe this will clarify the point...

I cannot understand your argument without knowing the standard you have applied.

If I know the standard you have applied, then I can accept or reject it OR I can argue the point if undecided.

If I am convinced that my standard is correct (based on the evidence)and your one is incorrect, then I will reject your argument.

If I accept my standards as being true (for rational reasons) and yours as being false, then it is not a matter of opinion.

If I cannot agree to a standard, then it is a matter of opinion.

Thank you!

Bad Thoughts - A Guide to Clear Thinking

In the USA ...

Crimes Against Logic - Exploring the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists and Other Serial Offenders

Marcus,
Would you point me to the right Whyte title for this info?

Thanks,
Christy

You wrote,

"The standard, in this case at least, is a matter of opinion—it's not emblazoned in the sky (intrinsicism) that more complex = better."

I wrote:

"He explains that a statement in which the “standard” has not yet been agreed upon, for example what is meant by “nice”, can be considered a matter of opinion."

What is your disagreement with this point, then?

In the second part of your response you state that:

"Mario Lanza is a better singer than Pavarotti" is dependent on the acceptance of certain criteria which are optional for each listener and have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, A or non-A, life vs death."

Yes, that is what I have said.

But, if your argument is that a standard can never be agreed upon to answer the question whether or not "Mario Lanza is a better singer than Pavarotti", then I have to strongly disagree.

To make such a claim would definitely smack of mysticism.

It's always a temptation, when confronted with a lunacy, to embrace its apparent polar opposite—and be disillusioned when you find you've simply flipped the coin you thought you were throwing away. At the moment the world is perishing from an orgy of "everything is a matter of opinion," no question. That's the fallacy of subjectivism. But to leap from that to "nothing is a matter of opinion" is intrinsicism—there's necessarily an a priori truth or falsehood inherent in every statement. To take Marcus' Beethoven/Mozart example—yes, of course Beethoven is more complex than Mozart, which makes him "better" if complexity is your criterion. But Marcus begs the question when he says, "If you were to accept my standard I would be correct." The standard, in this case at least, is a matter of opinion—it's not emblazoned in the sky (intrinsicism) that more complex = better. I happen to think more complexity does = better, & Beethoven certainly spins my wheels much more than Mozart, but some folk prefer the relative simplicity of Mozart, and there's nothing whatsoever to say they're wrong or embracing a falsehood. And a standard (such as complexity) is not rendered true or false by being "agreed upon." The only true thing one can say in that context is that the standard has been agreed upon.

Take another example from music. I say Mario Lanza is a much "better" singer than Pavarotti. Most people (being idiots:-)) would say the opposite. Mario goes off-key, his "line" falters sometimes, he gets "over-emotional"; Pavarotti never does any of these things. And it's true, he never does. And he bores me to tears. Mario brings me to the edge of my seat, his voice is lightning to Pavarotti's overcast, his "over-emotion" a comet to Pavarotti's pebble, his attention to & enunciation of the lyrics exceptional. But all of this (or three quarters of it at least) is a matter of opinion, or, more precisely perhaps, personal preference. Truth or falsehood comes into it only when it comes to reporting our preferences, not in the preferences as such. "I prefer Mario Lanza to Pavarotti" is true; "Mario Lanza is a better singer than Pavarotti" is dependent on the acceptance of certain criteria which are optional for each listener and have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, A or non-A, life vs death (unlike pronouncements about rap, for example).

And this doesn't even begin to address propositions specifically intended to be provisional, whose truth or falsehood is explicitly yet to be tested.

A politician will often say that their policy is to "improve" such and such - let's say - free trade. Of course he doesn't specify what he means by "improve". His idea of improving free trade, may be to restrict it further or liberalize it further.

Of course to be even more ambiguous, he could simply say he wants to make free trade more "fair". What a capitalist or socialist or communist thinks is fair are very different standards, but all parties may think he is speaking to them.

A politician dislikes giving specifics unless he really has to, he also dislikes defining his principles through generalisations.

If called upon to make a specific statement - many will say that they do not like to comment on specific cases - if called upon to make a generalisation based upon principle - many will say they don't like hypothetical questions.

In general, a politician must make all voters believe he is addressing their standards by making fuzzy statements and not outlining specific principles in order not to be caught out being inconsistent.

Favourite buzz words to use are - justice, equality, freedom, opportunity, rights, choice, principles, modern and future.

These words sound good to most voters, and without the politician being specific about what standards he applies to them - all voters can apply their own standards to them - from communist to socialist to capitalist.

Once in office, politicians can claim that an issue is now "better" or "improved" with impunity, because they never defined a standard or outlined specific principles behind their campaign slogans in the first place.

Good example, Marcus.

"Marcus, can you be more clear about the epiphany?"

Yes I can.

Imagine that I said to you that the music of Beethoven was "better" than Mozart.

You could react to this by violently disgreeing with me - without knowing what my standards for "better" were. So what are my standards of being better? Simply the complication of melody. So now you have a simple true or false statement. The melodies of Beethoven are either more complex than Mozart or they are not. If you were to accept my standard, than I would be correct. You may also discover that my standard is false or irrelevant or trivial.

However, most people would not argue the statement from exactly the same standard, but instead apply their own standards to the argument, and straight away assert that Mozart or Beethoven was the better - and spend time arguing past the real point.

Lance, are you baiting me?

...for your comments. I am waiting quite eagerly for Linz to point out where he thinks I went wrong.

Thanks Lance for pointing out my typing errors, I wrote the above quite quickly.

Although, my point here might sound like someone trying to evade his or her own opponents unappetizing arguments, in fact it is not.

The implications have profound psychological and philosophical aspects to them.

Is there a word for the phenomena of coming into contact with an obscure word or name on a Monday and having it come up again on a Tuesday? A student of mine was reading a Jamie Whyte book yesterday and telling me all about it (I recall one story or analogy had to do with a fish) and now his name turns up here.

Marcus, can you be more clear about the epiphany? An example would help me. Also, you might be missing a "not" in there. "I may (not) yet know whether it's true or false..." ??? There are actually a couple of places earlier in the post that didn't read quite right to me. No grammar police here...just trying to understand.

One point is that a statement can be something other than true or false. Some claims are arbitrary nonsense that are so far out of touch with reality that it doesn't even achieve falsehood status. What do you think of: "A statement is either true or not true." That'll catch the arbitrary and the falsehoods for you.

This isn't quite right, though its heart is in the right place, if I may use that expression. I need to finish my speech for next month, then I'll come back to this.

Linz