View Single Post
Old 09-10-2011, 04:24 PM   #63
Ben Thornton
Guru
Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ben Thornton ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Ben Thornton's Avatar
 
Posts: 900
Karma: 779635
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 2 (but not for e-books)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire View Post
I see no way to define art objectively. Even if you wire up my brain and categorize my responses to objects (paintings, statues, literature, songs, ...) they may not apply to any other person's responses to the same objects.
One needn't define art objectively, i.e. agree on what art is and isn't, in order to make an objective study of art. For example, one might discover that there is an "art" area of the brain which, when stimulated, causes us to appreciate something as art, but whose stimulation was different between individuals, hence leading to disagreement about what counted as art. I'm not suggesting that there really is an "art" area of the brain, just pointing out that there doesn't need to be a right answer about what art is in order to make an objective study of our experience of art. Similarly with morality - there need be no woo in morality, it can be objectively studied, even though there is not one right answer about what constitutes morality (or even what a moral question is).
Ben Thornton is offline   Reply With Quote