> On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Of course anyone can 'make' a v alue judgment'; there is sijply no reason for anyone else to accept it.
>
> > There is no way toadjudicate, for example, the different 'judgments' of Michael S & Joanna on Vivaldi.
But is every proposition pointless that can't be 'adjudicated'? Saints preserve us, does the unlovely ghost of Karl Popper stalk the list?
Tossing the ol'pigskin back and forth about Vivaldi might, for example, have enabled Joanna & me to understand each other better; to understand ourselves better; maybe even to understand Vivaldi better. There are at least as many subspecies of the Language Game as there are of poker.
Also, we had a good time. At least, it was good for me; I hope for you too, Joanna.
Incidentally, this phrase 'value judgement' is a pet peeve of mine; may I attempt to discourage its use? Who ever came up with this arid pseudo-clinical way of talking about the rich muddle of our aesthetic and moral intuitions, impulses & responses, anyway?
But of course it's undeniably true that my loathing for Vivaldi manifests itself in my mind wearing a somewhat judicial-looking robe. Not only do I *like*, say, Buxtehude better, I *can't help* thinking he *is* better. Emphasis on the 'can't help,' because thinking and feeling in meatware products like ourselves are inextricable interconnected. Any attempt on Reason's part to mount a palace coup and set herself up as sole sovereign, making adjudicable or verifiable judgements alone, is doomed to fail -- fortunately.
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com