We will not ever come up with a coherent scientific definition of art until we can do so with the mechanisms that underly thought and emotion.
So, you admit that it doesn't exist. But even if you did come up with such a definition, I don't think it would change anything in regards to this conversation, because what I'm speaking of is the traditional type of art class found in schools (painting, making sculptures, etc.), and was always what I was talking about. I will never support making those mandatory.
Categorizing absolutely everything as "art" will not change my opinion.
It doesn't change the fact that aesthetics exist
No one said that they don't exist.
They can also recognise "good design" (a near optimal solution to a technical, cost, aesthetics problem, or something that works well).
What is and is not good is subjective, as are a number of other words you used there.
Funny, because you can tell a lot about you from your post
Only in your imagination. This focus on irrelevancies doesn't seem very creative to me, by the way.
You're also prone to being defensive rather than realistic about what you actually know.
Then you're being rather defensive yourself.
You probably don't have much exposure to areas outside your work and where you live, and if you haven't fixed that by the time you're 20 years older, you'll never know what you're missing.
I could easily say the same about you, fool. And if you haven't dug giant holes in the ground with a spoon, you won't know what you're missing.
It's always funny to me to see people apply their subjective standards to everyone else as if they're objective. "You won't be a True Human if you don't do X!"
One thing you haven't taken into account is the size of Singapore, and their government
The size of Singapore and their government is irrelevant. No matter the size, due to the fact that humans make it up, it is corruptible. History has shown this so many times this isn't even debatable.
What seems to be working for them, and apparently it is working well for them
You think violating people's fundamental liberties qualifies as "working"?
Who is "we"? There are so many people (I'd say most) in the US who are ignorant of history and would gladly trade freedom for security (both real and fake). Those people merely *claim* to want liberty, freedom, and sometimes small government, but in reality they want anything but.
Education? Affordable housing? Healthcare?
on
The Social Laboratory
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm pretty sure it's not necessary to surrender fundamental liberties to get those.
But all this proves is that people too easily ignore history. Hundreds of millions of people abused throughout history by corrupt governments, and yet you want to give them the power to monitor people's communications? I'm sure your government, unlike all the other ones that came before it, is full of perfectly innocent little angels that will never abuse their powers or make mistakes. Furthermore, I'm sure your government will *always* be like that. So you can not only trust the people currently in your government, but every single person who will ever work for it. Yeah...
And it's not like privacy is a basic human need or anything.
Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.
Copyright infringement, at most, causes you to not gain something (other people's money, which they chose not to give you); it does not cause you to lose anything tangible.
If you honestly think that the government should waste money trying to stop people from voluntarily copying movies and such using their own private property, then I think you may be a bit mentally unstable. Copyright is anti-free market, anti-free speech, and anti-real private property.
You obviously don't work on anything creative or else you might think differently.
You claim to speak for all people who work on anything "creative"? And what does what he works on have to do with the validity of his arguments? It's always funny to me to see people say that the people directly involved in the situation are more right than anyone else. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? Of course people who stand to gain from a policy are going to support it in most cases! They're not any more incorrect, either, because people's arguments stand on their own merits.
Just because you don't want to pay for content does not mean you have the right to obtain it for free because the creator is not missing out on selling it to you.
I do have a right to free speech and my own private property. People voluntarily send me data (free speech) using their own private property (private property rights); the person or people who originally organized the data are almost never involved in this process, and at most, they simply do not gain; that is not the same as losing something.
Yet, some people think it's okay to have the 'right' to have government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights. I'd prefer to let the free market handle things; if you can't figure out a way to profit in the Age of Information, then you're going to fail, and that's really how it should be.
Anyway, I think it would be better to just refer to whatever it is you're thinking of by its specific name rather than just classifying everything as "art" and expecting people to know what the fuck you're talking about. You couldn't pick a more ambiguous term than "art." Because I have a feeling the kind of "art" I'm thinking of is different from the kind you're thinking of. Traditional art classes are a waste of time and should not be mandatory. I am not referring to mathematics or whatever else you or others classify as art.
I'm more surprised than anyone with even an ounce of intelligence can withstand our abysmal education system.
Art is not utterly subjective
Of course not. The magical opinion fairy said so, so it must be objective.
It includes typography, design, marketing, psychology, maths, visuals, communication.
Why not just classify everything as art? Logic is art. Everything is art. People can't even agree on what qualifies as art, so it very much is subjective.
Without it you're not a real person
Nice job denying that it's not subjective while trotting out the usual ambiguous statements that literally don't mean anything concrete.
Am I also not a True Scotsman?
just some kind of autistic literalist who won't reach their potential.
It seems that "autistic" is nothing more than a buzzword you people like to use to describe anyone you don't like. Not even bad scientists (i.e. most psychologists) would agree with your usage of that word.
Art is very much an analog of STEM.
How comical! How comical!
It's very important if you want to design objects, processes, interfaces, documents, software even, that aren't shit.
It's very important that you dig a giant hole in the ground with a spoon before you develop a piece of software, to prevent it from being shit.
You know, like you do.
You're actually a loser who's addicted to cocaine. I heard you also beat your wife.
What, I'm completely wrong? I don't know shit about you, because you're just a random idiot posting comments online? Well, then perhaps you'd like to try not makes random assumptions about people.
So yeah, nice job making a long post that doesn't show that art is not subjective. All you've done is further convince me that you can't even come up with a coherent scientific definition of art that isn't utterly subjective.
Also, no one is saying that they have to derive all the formulas and proofs from scratch. You don't have to do that in order to come to an intuitive understanding of why things work.
All that's happening now is mindless memorization, and then most people forget a grand majority of the facts they memorized, making the whole thing almost completely worthless. That's not 'education.'
The purpose of education is to get students to be able to think critically
Which is exactly what the education system is failing at. Everything is about rote memorization and passing poorly-designed standardized tests that require that you do little beyond regurgitating the facts you were supposed to memorize. What remains barely requires any critical thinking whatsoever.
It does a decent job of turning most people into rote memorization monkeys that can't think for themselves, though.
It should be like driver's ed - what you should or shouldn't do with a computer.
That doesn't sound like Computer Science at all; it sounds like an abomination. If you want to force people to take "Microsoft Essentials"-type classes where specific software and tips are learned by rote, then give them proper names; don't lie and say it's CS.
Protip: most kids don't learn English well until they take a second language.
Protip: Nonsense. That has more to do with bad teaching than it does having to take a foreign language to understand the native language of your own fucking country. My high school forced people to take French when I was in school, and it was simply awful. Bad teaching will make any subject seem impossible to learn, especially since most people seem to have no desire to learn on their own, and would rather be spoon fed (hence, public 'education').
it's widely accepted that the population could use a significantly broader awareness of the topics involved in STEM fields.
I don't even think most people are capable of truly understanding all but the most simple concepts. You see this in math, where people think that being able to *use* math is essentially the same as having an intuitive understanding of why and how it works. And it isn't just because of our awful education system that things are like this, though that certainly helps.
It should be the reasons behind art, what makes a thing aesthetically pleasing
That's utterly subjective, and why I think it should *not* be a core subject. If you want to take it, fine, but don't force your bullshit on me. This sort of mentality ("I like it, so everyone should have to take it.") was part of the reason why I never took public school seriously and eventually just dropped out.
Nope. It's a common tactic among religious idiots to tell other people what they believe, and make statements such as, "If you don't believe in God, you're dead inside!" or "You know in your heart that God exists!" He tried to tell me what I think, so he reminded me of creationists.
Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way.
I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).
Slobs don't make money.
I seem to be making quite a bit of money, so your absolutist statement is incorrect. It's all about finding the right place to work in. I choose not to surround myself with worthless people who only care about the superficial.
But it's probably true more often than not. But what does that mean, other than that our species is mentally diseased?
If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong.
Nope. It does actually help.
the true purpose is to keep your teeth white.
You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.
But even if it weren't unconstitutional (it is), I would still be 100% opposed to DUI checkpoints. Much like the TSA, it's not something a country that is truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' would do.
The difference is that you're offering a certain service (and food) to people. Regardless, this doesn't even matter.
You seem to be basing your beliefs on a rather strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
While you seem to be basing yours off an interpretation of the fourth amendment that renders it useless. There is nothing the government could not justify with your bullshit logic.
Personally, I think the word "unreasonable" shouldn't even be there, as it allows people like the fools who try to justify DUI checkpoints to twist the constitution's intentions to meet their authoritarian needs. That was a mistake on the part of the founders, though I suspect they couldn't predict every situation where tyrants would try to eliminate freedom.
Were it up to me, there would be a constitutional amendment that eliminated much of the government's powers and set things right, only allowing very explicitly defined exceptions, making it necessary to amend it in the future if it is required. I do think DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional, but people will abuse that "unreasonable" word to justify anything, as you yourself have proven.
It didn't look like you were trying to reason to begin with. More like trying to make (bad) excuses for a system which forbids certain speech using arbitrary, subjective standards (much like the US, as I've been saying).
No, "clear up bad breath" = "I have a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the smell of my breath, so I'm going to try to remove it." Seriously, how can you be that dense? Not everyone is an attention whore; I'm an extreme introvert.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understand what "utterly" means
Sure I do.
We will not ever come up with a coherent scientific definition of art until we can do so with the mechanisms that underly thought and emotion.
So, you admit that it doesn't exist. But even if you did come up with such a definition, I don't think it would change anything in regards to this conversation, because what I'm speaking of is the traditional type of art class found in schools (painting, making sculptures, etc.), and was always what I was talking about. I will never support making those mandatory.
Categorizing absolutely everything as "art" will not change my opinion.
It doesn't change the fact that aesthetics exist
No one said that they don't exist.
They can also recognise "good design" (a near optimal solution to a technical, cost, aesthetics problem, or something that works well).
What is and is not good is subjective, as are a number of other words you used there.
Funny, because you can tell a lot about you from your post
Only in your imagination. This focus on irrelevancies doesn't seem very creative to me, by the way.
You're also prone to being defensive rather than realistic about what you actually know.
Then you're being rather defensive yourself.
You probably don't have much exposure to areas outside your work and where you live, and if you haven't fixed that by the time you're 20 years older, you'll never know what you're missing.
I could easily say the same about you, fool. And if you haven't dug giant holes in the ground with a spoon, you won't know what you're missing.
It's always funny to me to see people apply their subjective standards to everyone else as if they're objective. "You won't be a True Human if you don't do X!"
One thing you haven't taken into account is the size of Singapore, and their government
The size of Singapore and their government is irrelevant. No matter the size, due to the fact that humans make it up, it is corruptible. History has shown this so many times this isn't even debatable.
What seems to be working for them, and apparently it is working well for them
You think violating people's fundamental liberties qualifies as "working"?
We are all for liberty and freedom
Who is "we"? There are so many people (I'd say most) in the US who are ignorant of history and would gladly trade freedom for security (both real and fake). Those people merely *claim* to want liberty, freedom, and sometimes small government, but in reality they want anything but.
I'm pretty sure it's not necessary to surrender fundamental liberties to get those.
But all this proves is that people too easily ignore history. Hundreds of millions of people abused throughout history by corrupt governments, and yet you want to give them the power to monitor people's communications? I'm sure your government, unlike all the other ones that came before it, is full of perfectly innocent little angels that will never abuse their powers or make mistakes. Furthermore, I'm sure your government will *always* be like that. So you can not only trust the people currently in your government, but every single person who will ever work for it. Yeah...
And it's not like privacy is a basic human need or anything.
"intellectual property" is nothing but a propaganda term to begin with.
Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.
Copyright infringement, at most, causes you to not gain something (other people's money, which they chose not to give you); it does not cause you to lose anything tangible.
If you honestly think that the government should waste money trying to stop people from voluntarily copying movies and such using their own private property, then I think you may be a bit mentally unstable. Copyright is anti-free market, anti-free speech, and anti-real private property.
You obviously don't work on anything creative or else you might think differently.
You claim to speak for all people who work on anything "creative"? And what does what he works on have to do with the validity of his arguments? It's always funny to me to see people say that the people directly involved in the situation are more right than anyone else. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? Of course people who stand to gain from a policy are going to support it in most cases! They're not any more incorrect, either, because people's arguments stand on their own merits.
Just because you don't want to pay for content does not mean you have the right to obtain it for free because the creator is not missing out on selling it to you.
I do have a right to free speech and my own private property. People voluntarily send me data (free speech) using their own private property (private property rights); the person or people who originally organized the data are almost never involved in this process, and at most, they simply do not gain; that is not the same as losing something.
Yet, some people think it's okay to have the 'right' to have government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights. I'd prefer to let the free market handle things; if you can't figure out a way to profit in the Age of Information, then you're going to fail, and that's really how it should be.
that*
making*
Anyway, I think it would be better to just refer to whatever it is you're thinking of by its specific name rather than just classifying everything as "art" and expecting people to know what the fuck you're talking about. You couldn't pick a more ambiguous term than "art." Because I have a feeling the kind of "art" I'm thinking of is different from the kind you're thinking of. Traditional art classes are a waste of time and should not be mandatory. I am not referring to mathematics or whatever else you or others classify as art.
I'm not surprised you dropped out.
I'm more surprised than anyone with even an ounce of intelligence can withstand our abysmal education system.
Art is not utterly subjective
Of course not. The magical opinion fairy said so, so it must be objective.
It includes typography, design, marketing, psychology, maths, visuals, communication.
Why not just classify everything as art? Logic is art. Everything is art. People can't even agree on what qualifies as art, so it very much is subjective.
Without it you're not a real person
Nice job denying that it's not subjective while trotting out the usual ambiguous statements that literally don't mean anything concrete.
Am I also not a True Scotsman?
just some kind of autistic literalist who won't reach their potential.
It seems that "autistic" is nothing more than a buzzword you people like to use to describe anyone you don't like. Not even bad scientists (i.e. most psychologists) would agree with your usage of that word.
Art is very much an analog of STEM.
How comical! How comical!
It's very important if you want to design objects, processes, interfaces, documents, software even, that aren't shit.
It's very important that you dig a giant hole in the ground with a spoon before you develop a piece of software, to prevent it from being shit.
You know, like you do.
You're actually a loser who's addicted to cocaine. I heard you also beat your wife.
What, I'm completely wrong? I don't know shit about you, because you're just a random idiot posting comments online? Well, then perhaps you'd like to try not makes random assumptions about people.
So yeah, nice job making a long post that doesn't show that art is not subjective. All you've done is further convince me that you can't even come up with a coherent scientific definition of art that isn't utterly subjective.
It used to be
While there might be a bit more rote memorization and standardized testing now, our education system was always a horrible one-size-fits-all mess.
Also, no one is saying that they have to derive all the formulas and proofs from scratch. You don't have to do that in order to come to an intuitive understanding of why things work.
All that's happening now is mindless memorization, and then most people forget a grand majority of the facts they memorized, making the whole thing almost completely worthless. That's not 'education.'
The purpose of education is to get students to be able to think critically
Which is exactly what the education system is failing at. Everything is about rote memorization and passing poorly-designed standardized tests that require that you do little beyond regurgitating the facts you were supposed to memorize. What remains barely requires any critical thinking whatsoever.
It does a decent job of turning most people into rote memorization monkeys that can't think for themselves, though.
It should be like driver's ed - what you should or shouldn't do with a computer.
That doesn't sound like Computer Science at all; it sounds like an abomination. If you want to force people to take "Microsoft Essentials"-type classes where specific software and tips are learned by rote, then give them proper names; don't lie and say it's CS.
Protip: most kids don't learn English well until they take a second language.
Protip: Nonsense. That has more to do with bad teaching than it does having to take a foreign language to understand the native language of your own fucking country. My high school forced people to take French when I was in school, and it was simply awful. Bad teaching will make any subject seem impossible to learn, especially since most people seem to have no desire to learn on their own, and would rather be spoon fed (hence, public 'education').
it's widely accepted that the population could use a significantly broader awareness of the topics involved in STEM fields.
I don't even think most people are capable of truly understanding all but the most simple concepts. You see this in math, where people think that being able to *use* math is essentially the same as having an intuitive understanding of why and how it works. And it isn't just because of our awful education system that things are like this, though that certainly helps.
It should be the reasons behind art, what makes a thing aesthetically pleasing
That's utterly subjective, and why I think it should *not* be a core subject. If you want to take it, fine, but don't force your bullshit on me. This sort of mentality ("I like it, so everyone should have to take it.") was part of the reason why I never took public school seriously and eventually just dropped out.
And that is where you completely lost it.
Nope. It's a common tactic among religious idiots to tell other people what they believe, and make statements such as, "If you don't believe in God, you're dead inside!" or "You know in your heart that God exists!" He tried to tell me what I think, so he reminded me of creationists.
Jesus, fuck. You are a seriously pedantic, trolling douche.
I don't see where I was being pedantic. I was simply countering his arguments that I believed to be wrong.
congratulations, your request for attention has been fulfilled.
As has yours, it seems.
You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that fact that the statement is obviously correct.
In your heart, you know that you're 100% incorrect. You're being deliberately obtuse.
You seem like a creationist.
Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way.
I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).
Slobs don't make money.
I seem to be making quite a bit of money, so your absolutist statement is incorrect. It's all about finding the right place to work in. I choose not to surround myself with worthless people who only care about the superficial.
But it's probably true more often than not. But what does that mean, other than that our species is mentally diseased?
If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong.
Nope. It does actually help.
the true purpose is to keep your teeth white.
You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.
Everyone is an attention whore.
Speak for yourself.
But even if it weren't unconstitutional (it is), I would still be 100% opposed to DUI checkpoints. Much like the TSA, it's not something a country that is truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' would do.
Driving a car is dangerous, too.
The difference is that you're offering a certain service (and food) to people. Regardless, this doesn't even matter.
You seem to be basing your beliefs on a rather strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
While you seem to be basing yours off an interpretation of the fourth amendment that renders it useless. There is nothing the government could not justify with your bullshit logic.
Personally, I think the word "unreasonable" shouldn't even be there, as it allows people like the fools who try to justify DUI checkpoints to twist the constitution's intentions to meet their authoritarian needs. That was a mistake on the part of the founders, though I suspect they couldn't predict every situation where tyrants would try to eliminate freedom.
Were it up to me, there would be a constitutional amendment that eliminated much of the government's powers and set things right, only allowing very explicitly defined exceptions, making it necessary to amend it in the future if it is required. I do think DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional, but people will abuse that "unreasonable" word to justify anything, as you yourself have proven.
You'll eventually notice the cavities, though. Especially with as much sugar as I eat.
*gives up trying to reason
It didn't look like you were trying to reason to begin with. More like trying to make (bad) excuses for a system which forbids certain speech using arbitrary, subjective standards (much like the US, as I've been saying).
No, "clear up bad breath" = "I have a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the smell of my breath, so I'm going to try to remove it." Seriously, how can you be that dense? Not everyone is an attention whore; I'm an extreme introvert.