4 ms·
> if your aesthetic preference is such that you find languages...But if we're just talking about personal taste...it's arbitrary Again, I don't agree with you
by ARandomerDude 7y ago
> if your aesthetic preference is such that you find languages...But if we're just talking about personal taste...it's arbitrary
Again, I don't agree with your worldview. The reason I referred to the Sistine Chapel was to provide an analogy: it doesn't merely fit my preferences better than my sketch. It is objectively better. There is something in the painting that is real. The beauty is real.
But on your view, the beauty is unreal. It's only real if you can measure it. I disagree.
Objectively. I think you're wrong and I suspect you think I'm wrong. And that means there is an objective philosophical truth even though we can't measure it.
ETA: not all truth is immeasurable, of course. There are plenty of measurable truths (for example, how many comments are on this thread, or the boiling point of water at standard pressure). But some truth cannot be measured in a laboratory, and that doesn't make it false or unreal.
- tsimionescu 7y agoComparing English to Latin is not like comparing the Sistine Chapel with a sketch. It's more like comparing the Sistine Chapel with a modernist painting. Is the Sistine Chapel objectively more beautiful than Mondrian's Broadway Boogie-Woogie?
- umanwizard 7y agoThat’s still a bit dubious IMO as it implies that Latin is the way it is because it reflects an older, “classical” style. Which is not true at all (ask any historical linguist) and only appears to be true if you restrict yourself to looking at Western European language. But in reality, there are ancient analytic/isolating languages (e.g., Classical Chinese), and contemporary highly fusional ones (e.g. Finnish, Navajo).