Re: 'the determination of Nazi Germany as being wrong by a union of nations is a recent example of this.'
Well, now, for a long time lots and lots of Germans thought the Nazis were right. And just suppose they had won the war... In art your formula would not work at all. For generations, people paid no attention to Vermeer or El Greco or Georges de la Tour. Now they are rated as great artists. Which 'group' opinion do we go for? The latest? So that would mean amending your formula. It's not just 'reliance on the group'; it has to be reliance on the most recent group, doesn't it?. And since another group might come along with a different view, where are we? There is of course a phrase for what you are describing, Frances. It's called the tyranny of the majority. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [???] RE: [???] RE: Music and all that jazz Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:11:03 -0400 > Frances to Derek... > > The group or groups making determinations must be relevant > to the issue of persons or peoples at hand. The casual > buddies of a learned aesthete for example do not make a > good group of relevant experts. The single group as well > as the sole person can of course also be wrong. It then > falls to better or bigger or other groups to agree. The > determination of Nazi Germany as being wrong by a union of > nations is a recent example of this. If reliance on the > group to find what may be good fails as a valid process, > then some other process must be sought, and none seems > viable given the current state of human epistemic > evolution. > > > > Derek wrote... > > So if I admire a novel, piece of music, or painting and > think it is great art and all my 'buddies' don't, I am > wrong- if not mentally disturbed??
