The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 03-05-2002, 09:30 PM

Respect to Aiwendul (and Bobby Fischer, although the Karpov and Korchnoi mind wars were utterly gripping, Glen).

Underhill ... you've tempted me out of voluntary retirement [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

You said - "aren’t your “objective” standards really just your version of subjective evaluation?"

Well, I haven't really gone into the nature of 'my' criteria, as such. All along I have just tried to gently probe the justification for the 'book of the century' tag, and see whether the same arguments used by various posters weren't in fact just smokescreens for Aiwendul's (and I guess your) honest subjectivity. I did this because, although this is a Tolkien forum, literature in all its variations is a precious expression of our humanity and spirit, and I didn't want love of Tolkien's works to become a self-serving vehicle for elitism and clique.

There is an essential element of philosophical reasoning behind any attempt to supply objective evaluative criteria. Ultimately I accept it is logically impossible, because in fact it's impossible to perceive or analyse anything without using individual perceptive tools which are, inherently, both subjective and relative. In this context comes Hume's refutation of empiricism ... and the progression of western philosophy through to existentialism, postmodernism and so on.

So what we are left with, in the end, is an attempt at evaluation by consensus. A set of ground rules, or assumptions, that have subtly evolved throughout history. And these too are suffused with cultural differentiation, fashionability and a multitude of variables, and inevitably reflective of our modern times ... global yet fragmented, challenging, commercialised and self-aware.

Is there still a respectable consensus on aesthetics? Not really. Neither can we share or assume criteria without carefully defining terms, and even then allowing plenty of room for manoeuvre. I'm aware of all this, and am just one voice in the crowd.

But I'm still a romantic idealist. I'm seeking, and seeking to preserve, a consensus that allows artists and their audience to interact with universal and aspirational concepts that we all instinctively understand the nature of, even if the rest of the logic falls down.

After all, most of us have a concept of beauty, for example. If we deconstruct everything in the cold light of our individual subjectivity, then beauty and its bedfellows (including entertainment for its own sake) are simply irrelevant. It just becomes a narcissistic justification - "I like this so it is good. Why is it good? Because I like it". Once the deconstruction takes place, you can't put beauty back into the equation - "I like this better than that, because it's more beautiful. Why is it more beautiful? Because I like it more".

The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification.

But the sting in the tail is this. If you have or accept that consensus, it means that, sometimes, you can't use hype or grand words to justify what you like. You can't always be right. It means the loudest voice doesn't always win. It allows you - no, it forces you - to differentiate between self-indulgence and integrity.

Look. There are no rights or wrongs in this argument (please let's avoid the religious dimension just for the moment). And there's no pompous morality. It's just being human. Of course everything is ultimately subjective. Even within a consensus there will be a wide range of standpoints. And no one person's view has any more worth than another - just as no one person is worth more than another.

So there is no threat in what I'm saying. It's what we all pretend. I doubt anyone aside from a few ascetic philosophers and perhaps an atheist monk (if there is one) actually live their life with the intense rationalised subjectivity, avoidance of universality, and immediacy of experience posited by Heidegger. Likewise we can't live life with the stark self-knowledge and star-bright transformatives of Neitzche. Not for more than a few seconds at a time, anyway.

Anyway, I'm exhausted now, so I propose one final consensus. Let's agree to differ. Please refer to Trilogy and Bible thread for all ultimate truths.

No more truce-breaking, Mister Underhill! Aiwendul and I were almost on speaking terms [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

These boards are brilliant. Please note I'm fresh from AOL chatrooms with themes such as "Liberals are cowards", "God is a product of evolution", and "Free readings for LA policemen by psychic transsexuals". It's an absolute pleasure being here with all you erudite, entertaining and positive people [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

03-05-2002, 09:30 PM	#70
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Respect to Aiwendul (and Bobby Fischer, although the Karpov and Korchnoi mind wars were utterly gripping, Glen). Underhill ... you've tempted me out of voluntary retirement [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] You said - "aren’t your “objective” standards really just your version of subjective evaluation?" Well, I haven't really gone into the nature of 'my' criteria, as such. All along I have just tried to gently probe the justification for the 'book of the century' tag, and see whether the same arguments used by various posters weren't in fact just smokescreens for Aiwendul's (and I guess your) honest subjectivity. I did this because, although this is a Tolkien forum, literature in all its variations is a precious expression of our humanity and spirit, and I didn't want love of Tolkien's works to become a self-serving vehicle for elitism and clique. There is an essential element of philosophical reasoning behind any attempt to supply objective evaluative criteria. Ultimately I accept it is logically impossible, because in fact it's impossible to perceive or analyse anything without using individual perceptive tools which are, inherently, both subjective and relative. In this context comes Hume's refutation of empiricism ... and the progression of western philosophy through to existentialism, postmodernism and so on. So what we are left with, in the end, is an attempt at evaluation by consensus. A set of ground rules, or assumptions, that have subtly evolved throughout history. And these too are suffused with cultural differentiation, fashionability and a multitude of variables, and inevitably reflective of our modern times ... global yet fragmented, challenging, commercialised and self-aware. Is there still a respectable consensus on aesthetics? Not really. Neither can we share or assume criteria without carefully defining terms, and even then allowing plenty of room for manoeuvre. I'm aware of all this, and am just one voice in the crowd. But I'm still a romantic idealist. I'm seeking, and seeking to preserve, a consensus that allows artists and their audience to interact with universal and aspirational concepts that we all instinctively understand the nature of, even if the rest of the logic falls down. After all, most of us have a concept of beauty, for example. If we deconstruct everything in the cold light of our individual subjectivity, then beauty and its bedfellows (including entertainment for its own sake) are simply irrelevant. It just becomes a narcissistic justification - "I like this so it is good. Why is it good? Because I like it". Once the deconstruction takes place, you can't put beauty back into the equation - "I like this better than that, because it's more beautiful. Why is it more beautiful? Because I like it more". The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification. But the sting in the tail is this. If you have or accept that consensus, it means that, sometimes, you can't use hype or grand words to justify what you like. You can't always be right. It means the loudest voice doesn't always win. It allows you - no, it forces you - to differentiate between self-indulgence and integrity. Look. There are no rights or wrongs in this argument (please let's avoid the religious dimension just for the moment). And there's no pompous morality. It's just being human. Of course everything is ultimately subjective. Even within a consensus there will be a wide range of standpoints. And no one person's view has any more worth than another - just as no one person is worth more than another. So there is no threat in what I'm saying. It's what we all pretend. I doubt anyone aside from a few ascetic philosophers and perhaps an atheist monk (if there is one) actually live their life with the intense rationalised subjectivity, avoidance of universality, and immediacy of experience posited by Heidegger. Likewise we can't live life with the stark self-knowledge and star-bright transformatives of Neitzche. Not for more than a few seconds at a time, anyway. Anyway, I'm exhausted now, so I propose one final consensus. Let's agree to differ. Please refer to Trilogy and Bible thread for all ultimate truths. No more truce-breaking, Mister Underhill! Aiwendul and I were almost on speaking terms [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] These boards are brilliant. Please note I'm fresh from AOL chatrooms with themes such as "Liberals are cowards", "God is a product of evolution", and "Free readings for LA policemen by psychic transsexuals". It's an absolute pleasure being here with all you erudite, entertaining and positive people [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]