[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins.

One can certainly make a linguistic argument to establish a psychological point about human views of metaphysics (which is what, in my understanding, Barfield's argument is). One could even, in principle, start with linguistic premises and arrive at a metaphysical conclusion (though I cannot think of an example and I don't know whether any exist). What I said (or meant to say) is that one cannot make a purely linguistic argument with a linguistic conclusion and then simply transfer that conclusion onto another plane. The derivation of the word "amuse" may say interesting things about human views of humor - and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I find the information contemptible or uninteresting - but it does not by itself establish any broader point about the nature of humor or art, or of their relation. As I think you agree:

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word.

I certainly did not mean to question (and don't see that I did in any way question) the argument of Tolkien and Barfield that, as you say:

Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

Littlemanpoet also wrote:

If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis.

I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".

Again, I'm sorry if I've misrepresented The Saucepan Man's view - but in any case, the sentiment thus expressed does defend relativism against the kind of argument made by littlemanpoet.