Frances to Derek and others... The pragmatist stance on group theory as applied to social activities, like religion and art and philosophy and science, goes beyond the mere conventional agreement of communal members. The determination of what might be found good furthermore includes the beautiful or nice and correct and true. The finding of goodness is what any group of familiar or learned experts will tentatively concur to by a consensus of their opinion. The group of course must be relevant and pertinent to the issues at hand. The good therefore is what the group would eventually arrive at by a collaborative effort, if sufficient research were carried out by curiosity and inquiry and discovery. There are however many barriers to research, so that the route of least resistance is often temporarily taken. The principle at work here for pragmatists states that if a thing ever could be found good, then it probably will be in the long run, regardless of whether it ever actually will be found good. It is therefore sufficient to satisfy the tenets of pragmatism if a thinker merely believes in this optimistic likelihood. The forecasted outcome of goodness must hence remain indefinite. The members of groups who make determinations must clearly be normal by all evolutionary standards, which is to say rational in thought and reasonable in conduct. In any event, that which is deemed good will grow by the process of evolution, to adapt and change and advance and expand and progress. Even group theory is justly prone to revisionist amendments. It seems to me that this process in practice might be the best available at the present, because it is naturally real and objectively logical. The alternative process that favors the determination of individual persons as better than that of communal peoples relies far too much on subjectivity and psychologism.
Derek partly wrote in effect... Most local Germans thought the Nazis were right. This is called the tyranny of the majority. The group formula would not work at all in art. This would mean amending the formula. It's not just a reliance on the group, it has to be reliance on the most recent group, and another group might come along with a different view.
