Yes -- Cheerskep has nailed exactly what I had in mind. Derek's identification of things as art is "effectively vacuous" and "leave the rest of us with no handle for discussion". (so why do we continue to query him? Beats the hell out of me. )
But neither is there anything to discuss regarding what Cheerskep finds "cherishable". He likes to watch football games - I like to watch Professional Wrestling (big muscle guys with their shirts off) -- conversation over. (But at least the cherishable reveals something about the cherisher -- while Derek's "art" reveals nothing about Derek -- because, as he's told us -- it's not necessarily anything that he enjoys.) Conversations can only begin when brave souls stick their necks out and assert that some quality or criteria has special importance or value -- as Boris just did with the word "completeness". The skeptics, like Cheerskep and Derek , will immediately attack it as hopelessly incomplete or muddled --- but since they will do that to all such assertions -- their attacks can just be ignored -- while those who want to discuss aesthetics need to push Boris to connect his word to examples -- as well as to other words, historical and current, that have been used to identify things of value. For some reason (perhaps the importance of skepticism to scientific inquiry?) -- we have allowed the skeptics to dominate and shut down discussion on this forum -- but we should probably just ignore those who refuse to offer their own incomplete, diminutive, and muddled criteria for a possibly humiliating examination. Sort like the rules in a nudist camp: only fellow nudists can participate. _____________________________________________________________ Taking a trip? Click here to compare hotel rates and find a great deal. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmgiaM7HlS01tooNLkXpy131 DUTjotZFgeHLWdJlZRbnxWHS/?count=1234567890
