I think this is also a very Marxian idea. Isn't it a problem with capitalism that it degrades taste and human skill and accomplishment, producing stunted monsters? Isn't it supposed to be an advantage of socialism that it will enable people to develop their talents and tastes in a more refined way? Thus making them better, more complete, more fullly rounded people?
My own tastes are pretty Catholic. I like everything from Doris Day, the Fugees, and the Beach Boys to Duke Ellington, Stravinsky, and Bach. I like classic cinema and exploding car movies with a high shooting to kissing ratio. I read everything from Hammett to Hegel. So I am only half a snob. But is it bad to be half a snob?
jks
--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Ted Winslow wrote:
> >
> > But as much I personally love Vivaldi's
> > Gloria, I would find it offensive if some one
> were to write: "Vivaldi's
> > Gloria gives more pleasure than
> "Achy-breaky-heart."
> >
> > This is claiming, isn't it, that your "subjective
> feeling" - "I find offensive etc." - is superior to
> "the subjective states of _other_ peopls."
>
> No. It is the writing, a political _act_, not the
> (presumed) subjective
> feeling I object to. My expression of the point was
> doubtless too
> laconic, but I don't have time to develop it now. I
> think that writing
> such a judgment implies the superiority as humans of
> those who have the
> superior pleasure.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com