1st December 2005, 9:52 AM
Thank you for clarifying.
Even if it is opinion, just like good or evil is based on opinion, it can still be clearly defined. It's just that the level of subjectivity and what attributes are subjective will be listed in any valid definition.
Good is whatever benefits a being, and evil is whatever causes harm to a being. These are very specific definitions, but they are also very subjective, as it depends on what the definer considers harmful or beneficial. I am not saying my above definition is the only one we should use. I'm only saying it is valid because it can be specified as something in particular with characteristic defining it's nature. A is A, the first letter of the alphabet, a character used to indicate a sound, written as "A" or "a". As opposed to: A has an A-like quality. If it can't be identified, the concept has no meaning. It also can't just have secondary characteristics, like "A is not any of the other letters of the alphabet", this is secondary because it's only after we establish what it is that we can properly say what it is not, that will follow based on those primary characteristics defining it for what it is. Even "the unknown cause of death" as a concept can be properly defined. It is currently unknown, it lacks evidence as to specify it, and it has caused the death of this particular person. Any more specifics are lacking, but that definition is specific enough to define exactly what the concept "the unknown cause of death" is.
However, I must say I agree with your definition.
Ancient artifacts are only mildly appreciated for artistic value a lot of the time. For those that take interest, the value comes in the historical knowledge one can gain about the past from such artifacts. For example, the piece you describe can tell us such activities were either common enough or accepted enough that art could be made depicting such domestic violence. The historical knowledge the art of the past is of value often greatly exceeding whatever artistic value may be present. There are exceptions mind you. Most people find much more value in Leonardo's artwork for it's artistic nature than it's historic nature. Personally, I enjoy the art depicting scientific concepts (like that golden mean image of a man in a rectangle in a circle) more than his other works. It relates more to my own tastes, so I prefer it. I also love studying his scientific discoveries and engineering works. I understand he was thought of as rather lazy by some of his contractors... I also understand that a number of his inventions were purposefully or otherwise flawed in the design sketches (purposefully is a common hobby in the era before copyrights, a single critical flaw only the designer knows of that prevents the invention from working should someone just steal the design from the blueprints).
Even if it is opinion, just like good or evil is based on opinion, it can still be clearly defined. It's just that the level of subjectivity and what attributes are subjective will be listed in any valid definition.
Good is whatever benefits a being, and evil is whatever causes harm to a being. These are very specific definitions, but they are also very subjective, as it depends on what the definer considers harmful or beneficial. I am not saying my above definition is the only one we should use. I'm only saying it is valid because it can be specified as something in particular with characteristic defining it's nature. A is A, the first letter of the alphabet, a character used to indicate a sound, written as "A" or "a". As opposed to: A has an A-like quality. If it can't be identified, the concept has no meaning. It also can't just have secondary characteristics, like "A is not any of the other letters of the alphabet", this is secondary because it's only after we establish what it is that we can properly say what it is not, that will follow based on those primary characteristics defining it for what it is. Even "the unknown cause of death" as a concept can be properly defined. It is currently unknown, it lacks evidence as to specify it, and it has caused the death of this particular person. Any more specifics are lacking, but that definition is specific enough to define exactly what the concept "the unknown cause of death" is.
However, I must say I agree with your definition.
Ancient artifacts are only mildly appreciated for artistic value a lot of the time. For those that take interest, the value comes in the historical knowledge one can gain about the past from such artifacts. For example, the piece you describe can tell us such activities were either common enough or accepted enough that art could be made depicting such domestic violence. The historical knowledge the art of the past is of value often greatly exceeding whatever artistic value may be present. There are exceptions mind you. Most people find much more value in Leonardo's artwork for it's artistic nature than it's historic nature. Personally, I enjoy the art depicting scientific concepts (like that golden mean image of a man in a rectangle in a circle) more than his other works. It relates more to my own tastes, so I prefer it. I also love studying his scientific discoveries and engineering works. I understand he was thought of as rather lazy by some of his contractors... I also understand that a number of his inventions were purposefully or otherwise flawed in the design sketches (purposefully is a common hobby in the era before copyrights, a single critical flaw only the designer knows of that prevents the invention from working should someone just steal the design from the blueprints).
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)