Aesthetics, like other dimensions of meaning, is neither objective nor subjective, because it is an interaction. @paulg nails that here: 
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1460222704083214343
@paulg My introduction to this topic is here… I promised more explanation, which is now on my short list. “Meaning isn’t objective, so it’s not real, just made up” is a common nihilist complaint, and it needs a serious reply.
meaningness.com/objective-subj…
meaningness.com/objective-subj…
@paulg “Objective meaning” is hard work to untangle, because everyone assumes, without thinking about it, that they know what “objective” means, but it’s a completely incoherent idea.
As usual, the _SEP_ demonstrates that no one has a clue: plato.stanford.edu/entries/scient…
As usual, the _SEP_ demonstrates that no one has a clue: plato.stanford.edu/entries/scient…
@paulg Everyone’s thinking is polluted with bad metaphysics (like “everything is either objective or subjective”) that exists only because philosophers have catastrophic standards of work product.
Unfortunately, to correct wrong ideas, you have to do the philosophers’ work for them.
Unfortunately, to correct wrong ideas, you have to do the philosophers’ work for them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
