site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Art only has to inspire emotions in people.

Is that true?

If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?

Really the premise is a bit self-defeating. If art is meant to inspire emotion, it's meant to make you think. Something that sticks around in your head and makes you think will generate much more complex and long-lasting emotion than a simple aesthetic achievement.

Not only that, but there are important things much more important than emotion which art aspires to capture. Who cares about a moment of appreciation when you could induce a character change in someone and alter the course of their life? That is, I think, the true purpose of art--to change us--and other claimed purposes such as "to make us feel something" or "to make us think" are just gesturing towards smaller, less ambitious versions of its true purpose.

When I listen to a classical symphony, it doesn’t inspire change or really any ideation in me at all. It’s a pure aesthetic experience, designed to manipulate my emotions and make me feel enjoyment and awe. There’s no intellectual content there, no lasting alteration in my patterns of conscious thought, no epistemic or philosophical updates on offer. Do you believe that this makes classical music “not art”? Or is it art that is failing at its one true purpose? Did Beethoven just not understand that he was supposed to be changing people’s minds, rather than simply making something beautiful for them?

I don't accept the premise that any experience is incapable of producing change. Any awe you feel while listening to music will inescapably color your behavior throughout the day to some extent, and possibly make you see things in a slightly different light.

This is of course not limited to art, but I think the value of things in general is based on how they affect and change us. If art were purely aesthetic experience, with no lasting changes to attitude, perspective, philosophy, mood, etc. then I would find it valueless, yes. Luckily such an experience is impossible. Everything we do and experience changes us to some extent, or else it's no better than wireheading and should be discounted entirely.

Every year on my birthday, I eat a delicious piece of salted caramel cheesecake, as a treat. It’s pure sugar and fat, an indulgence of atavistic hungers programmed in me by evolution. It’s orgasmically delicious in the moment, but also terrible for me, which is why I do it once a year. Is there intellectual content in my consumption of the cheesecake? Does it “produce a change in me”? Is the cheesecake art? It is a physical artifact produced by hand by a human being, with the intention of generating an emotional/aesthetic experience in the consumer. Like a classical symphony, it produces a transitory, evanescent sense of elation in me. (Thank God Beethoven’s 9th Symphony doesn’t put 1,300 calories of pure junk food into my body every time I listen to it.)

I used to draw a distinction between “art” and “entertainment”, using an exclusive definition of art the way you are now. Over time, though, I accepted that the distinction is illusory, and that there is nothing wrong with consuming content that is designed purely to excite me aesthetically and to cater to my current preferences, rather than to alter them.

I suppose I'm trying to remove the distinction from art and entertainment from the other direction--by saying that all entertainment is art, rather than that all art is entertainment. Would you eat the cheesecake if you knew that afterwards you'd forget eating it? I think even for the very most carnal pleasures (besides drugs) most of the enjoyment we get from them is still from the meaning we derive from them.

That said, at this point "art" doesn't really seem to be what I'm talking about, so I agree with your point to an extent. I don't know if I could truly define what art is, but I can say that it's not just to make us feel something and then that's the end of it.

Would art be redundant if we could inspire the same changes by popping pills?

It's a strange hypothetical. Good art causes you to reflect and compare/contrast your own thoughts and experiences to the art. The pill would have to have some sort of intellectual effect in addition to its weak calming effect (or whatever emotional effect it is that art has on you). I'd go so far as to say the only way for it to inspire the same change would be for it to be the same thing. So yes, if we could hallucinate art by popping pills, maybe there would be less need for physical art.

Ah, I see. So the changes induced by art (when carrying out its true purpose) have an intrinsic intellectual element, tied to the item of art itself? Seems quite plausible to me, though I'm no expert on the topic.

Yes.

The Experience Machine is a dumb philosophical quandry IMO. If reality and illusion are identical from the observer's perspective, what's the difference? What is valuable about a painting? The structure of its molecules? The pattern of light it produces? That's nothing without an observer to see it. Surely it must be the product of the thoughts and emotions that it inspires in those who view it. If you can remove the light and the molecules but keep the thoughts and emotions, then nothing of value is lost.

If reality and illusion are identical from the observer's perspective, what's the difference?

People's preferences are usually asymmetric over the two.

But if they can't tell the difference, then what is the meaning of the preference? If illusion can't be disproven then it differs from reality in name only.

what is the meaning of the preference?

I don't know what you mean by that phrase.

If illusion can't be disproven then it differs from reality in name only.

Why not also in fact? There's nothing mysterious about the notion of someone being trapped in an illusory state.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats