Art are there levels to it upon how good it is.

[vertigo]

Art transends any defenition or tag or whatever

A fact of existence is that nothing transcends definition (except the supernatural).

[The Reservoir Dog]

Vertigo please understand that outside of your little world there are are a many great things that people can not define. The supernatural is one, art is another one. If you have to define it Webster defines it as "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." the key word here to me is beauty which I think we can all agree is in the eye of the beholder.

[vertigo]

My little world is called reality. It's something you don't seem to know too much about.

[necroshine]

vertigo you seem as closed minded about this subject as some christians i know.

[vertigo]

I take it you disagree with me, that you also think art transcends definition.

[The Reservoir Dog]

actually your little world is called ignorence perhaps I should refer to you as B33 from now on

[vertigo]

You are the one appealing to ignorance, bud. You are the one tell me art transcends definition, so don't come now with the story that my world is one of ignorance. Am I ignorant of the ignorance that is art?

[necroshine]

vertigo said:

I take it you disagree with me, that you also think art transcends definition.

we have a definition of it. we know what art is.
what it i'm saying is art can not be called "good" or "bad" stick men done by a 7 year old is just as good as any thing else you can show me from anyone. that 7 year old is just as proud of that work as i am of mine.
there is what you like and don't like. but you can not just say someones art is crap because you don't care for it. have more feelings than that. at least try to understand what you are looking at.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

Vertigo you have stated at points previous that you dont care about anyones point of view except your own. I wonder though how far that extends. In other words at what point do you ever conceed that some one else may have a higher amount of knowledge on a subject than your self?

[vertigo]

Dragon, knowledge is based on trust. If I read an atlas and see that Finland is in the Northern Hemisphere, I trust that knowledge to the degree that I trust the atlas.

Trust comes from reliability. If something is reliable, we might begin to trust it. If we have only ever seen one atlas, we might doubt what it says. But having seen in many atlasses and in other places that Finland is in fact in the Northern Hemisphere, I am more likely to trust that. I would give greater consideration to a trusted source than an untrusted source.

At the end of the day, I don't owe it to anyone to trust them prematurely, or to consider likely things I consider not to be likely just because they have said it. If someone I don't know to trust says something which goes against what I deem likely, I would refrain from prematurely trusting them, although I would remember what they said. If I prematurely trust them, I would be building my knowledge on an unstable basis.

I used to be a very trusting person. Unfortunately, it often happened that I trusted what someone said and it turned out to be wrong. Usually when that happened, I was made to look the fool. For instance, Person A tells me X, and I believe them. I then tell Person B that X, Person B discovers that X is in fact false, and now considers me to be untrustworthy. If I trust untrustworthy sources, other people will see me as an untrustworthy source.

To the degree that I trust prematurely, I am an untrustworthy source. Analogously, to the degree I trust prematurely, my knowledge is untrustworthy because it is built on an untrustworthy foundation. Knowledge is only as good as the foundation it is built on.

So the onus is on me to ensure my knowledge has the best foundation possible, especially if I will share my knowledge with others. Seeing that the person who pours water down a whale's blowhole is trying to help but actually does far more harm than good, having improper knowledge can be highly dangerous, to ourselves and to others. It would be responsible of me to do my utmost to ensure my knowledge is correct. That means I should not trust people prematurely.

Knowledge is justified belief. If belief is unjustified, one would be responsible for damage caused via that belief. The person who drowns the whale is liable for that mistake because they should have known better. It was irresponsible for them to act on their belief that pouring water down the whale's blowhole in that case would help.

So as someone who wishes to live responsibly, the onus is on me to ensure my beliefs are justified before I act on them. We justify beliefs by seeing if they conform to reality. If a belief is a reliable predictor of effects in reality, it is knowledge. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity is knowledge, at least as it pertains to small scale effects. It might fail to accurately explain light bending around galaxies, but it certainly explains why the apple falls off the tree. I trust Newtons theory in certain contexts, like that of the apple falling off the tree, but not in others such as light bending around galaxies.

Knowledge is contextual. Even though I might trust my doctor to look after my health, I probably would not trust him or her to give me financial advice, etc. I consider the doctor to be reliable at improving health from the degrees they have and the number of years they have worked.

So, to trust a source, one needs some evidence of their reliability. To trust a doctor, I need to know about what they do. I know the type of ailments doctors deal with, and that they save lives. What do I know about someone like Aristotle or Descartes? If I am to judge them trustworthy philosophers, I need some understanding of what they do. What philosophical problems do/did they face? Were the answers they provided useful? I need to judge these things myself to trust them.

[necroshine]

What is hell is all the trust about?
Who cares if you TRUST us or not? You don’t have to trust me to see my side of an argument. That is just having an open mind. You have to trust your wife, dr, family, and friends. If you don’t have trust for or from these people you need to rethink who you hang out with.
Our argument with you has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with opening your mind to something other than the tunnel vision you seem to have. Can you even comprehend the possibility that you could be wrong about a subject?
The attitude that I read in your posts is that you’re view is correct as far as you care and you don’t care what others might think, nor do you care to hear their side of it.

[vertigo]

The attitude that I read in your posts is that you’re view is correct as far as you care and you don’t care what others might think, nor do you care to hear their side of it.

I see.

[The Reservoir Dog]

I agree with Necroshine, maybe I was a little harsh in comparing you to B33 I will not apologize for this but I will admit it may have been a little harsh, however that is how your argument came across to me. It is important to be steadfast in your opinion however also be open to change. You constantly treat us as if we are trying to destroy your way of life, but in reality we are simply trying to get you to understand that there is more than what you see, there is what others see. Right now I see you no different than a ridiculous theist who won't open his/her mind to the possibility of being wrong.

[vertigo]

If someone told you the sky was green, but you knew it was blue, would you be 'open to change'?

[The Reservoir Dog]

Actually the sky is no particular color if you want your reality in there. However, to answer your question why not. The sky could be all different colors to people who are color blind, how do you know your not? That much like art is the beauty there, it is all subject to personal perception.