Clark, list, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here, Clark. You wrote:
Peirce’s regulatory notion of final opinion seems tied towards representations and their truth values. This isn’t to deny we can talk about final interpretants, but more that certain representation are finalized. So the claim “this music is of high quality” meaning aesthetic value seems something we can determinate and thus sensible for consideration as a final interpretant. I don't agree. First, and again, "in the long run" is a normative idea of science. Peirce argues that whole societies, whole eras may get aspects of science wrong, but that eventually science *will-be *self-correcting. Indeed, powerful sub-societies of very well-educated (for their time) scientists can be wrong for a very long time on some matter, but in the long run a scientific method which is open, honest, and self-correcting, that is, a pragmatic method, will at least asymptotically approach "the truth" of each matter under consideration. This is not the case for aesthetic artifacts. Clark continued: My sense though is that we need to unpack what we’re actually analyzing. After all as Gary notes just because something is held as true today need not imply it will in the future. This is both due to the nature of inquiry but also I think because we’re conflating two issues. The first whether something is appealing to some finite group. Obviously just because something appeals to one group it need not appeal to an other group. The second issue is whether something is universally aesthetical. These are two very different questions. One can answer differently for each. I do not see how any cultural artifact can be "universally aesthetical" except in Peirce's sense that everything has its own esthetic character (Peirce substitutes 'e' for 'ae' when discussing the normative science of esthetics), and even if, say, that character is a kind of ugliness, etc. As for the fine arts, by way of example, among my aesthetic peers in music, by which in this case I mean people I know personally who love music, have listened to a great deal of it for many years, have studied it, read up on it, etc. there is a tremendous amount of difference of opinion as to the aesthetic quality of given works of art. Indeed, even some composers whom I personally very much admire are discounted by others, for example. Thus, even in consideration of the great European master composers there is anything but consensus, and there is certainly no individual work which might be considered "universally aesthetical." When we turn to contemporary music and music of other cultures (even when it's fairly well known/understood), there is even less agreement. Finally, as I noted, it is the self-correcting of science which brings *us* closer to the theoretical truth of any matter. Peirce suggests that if anyone were sufficiently scientifically prepared, that he or she would be able to agree with the others that such and such a matter is fairly settled in say its demonstration of, for example, a geometrical principle. There is no such self-correcting in art. Each work is more of less *sui generis*, and while a given work may have a *very large* appreciative audience in some culture(s) at some time(s), it is my already stated opinion that this will not be sustained in the long run. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is the quality of music determined by the final opinion of that music? > > > > My first response is that "in the long run" for Peirce is a normative > idea in science and does not apply necessarily--maybe only very little, or > not at all--to the fine arts. > > > > It is true that Bach and Mozart, for example, after hundreds of years, > still have considerable appeal. In my opinion, some of this is the result > of (or at least involves) acoustical phenemona which they > exploit--harmonies,counterpoints, etc.--which really do have a visceral > effect on the human nervous system. But I do not think that it is at all > certain that even they will be appreciated in several hundred or so years. > > Aren’t we making a category error here? > > Peirce’s regulatory notion of final opinion seems tied towards > representations and their truth values. This isn’t to deny we can talk > about final interpretants, but more that certain representation are > finalized. So the claim “this music is of high quality” meaning aesthetic > value seems something we can determinate and thus sensible for > consideration as a final interpretant. > > My sense though is that we need to unpack what we’re actually analyzing. > After all as Gary notes just because something is held as true today need > not imply it will in the future. This is both due to the nature of inquiry > but also I think because we’re conflating two issues. The first whether > something is appealing to some finite group. Obviously just because > something appeals to one group it need not appeal to an other group. The > second issue is whether something is universally aesthetical. These are two > very different questions. One can answer differently for each. > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
