[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 70 KB, 444x613, RogerScruton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.5067714 [Reply] [Original]

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/roger-scruton-fake-culture/

He has a point. How can one disagree without denying the core principles of his belief and undermining his original position?

>> No.5067717

bump for great justice

>> No.5067719

>2011+3
>using fake/authentic binary

>> No.5067758

>And if you have earned your academic career by learning to push around the nonsensical mantras of the impostors, combining them in the impenetrable syntax that hoodwinks the person who composes it as much as the person who reads it, no doubt you will react indignantly to everything I have said so far and cease to read further.

I sense a strong "if you disagree with me you must be one of them too" kind of vibe. Exactly the same stuff as with Marxists. Is the piece a fake critic ?

>> No.5067781

>>5067758
Upon reading further, what follows is rather legit, although it still falls under a "this criticism can be applied to anything" kind of flaw.

>> No.5067794

Scruton is a cancerous hack that plays at moralism but acts to the contrary.

>In 2002 it emerged that Scruton had been receiving a fee of £54,000 p.a. from Japan Tobacco International (JTI) during a period when he had written about tobacco issues without declaring an interest.[56][57] He wrote articles for The Wall Street Journal in 1998 and 2000, and in 2000 wrote a 65-page pamphlet —"WHO, What, and Why: Trans-national Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organisation"—for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a British free-market think-tank. The pamphlet criticized the World Health Organization's (WHO) campaign against smoking, arguing that transnational bodies should not seek to influence domestic legislation because they are not answerable to the electorate. He wrote that overall he was against tobacco—his own father died of emphysema after smoking for many years—but that it was an innocent pleasure.[58]

>The matter became public when a letter signed by Professor Scruton's wife to Japan Tobacco International was leaked, in which they were asked to increase the payments to £66,000 p.a., in exchange for which "We would aim to place an article every two months in one or other of the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Financial Times, the Economist, the Independent or the New Statesman." The failure to disclose these payments has led to criticism of a perceived conflict of interest. Scruton was later dismissed from roles with the Financial Times[59] and Wall Street Journal.[60][61][62]

>> No.5069010

>>5067794
So? It's the article that's in question here.

>> No.5069019

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5188141/Why.Beauty.Matters.WS.PDTV.XviD-W4F
>Description: Philosopher Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the
importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives.
Scruton is the best.

>>5067794
That's Ad honinem, bro.

>> No.5069341

>>5069010
>>5069019
Ad hominem arguments are actually valid in such cases. No good can come of this man. He's a pretentious little shit who plays at being upper class while he's a new money opportunist.

When he's interviewed he poses in his library and tries to smoke a cigar in a debonair manner. He writes music that no one wants to hear. He goes on fox hunts to fit in with the upper class. His whole life is an elaborate role playing adventure in the most pitiful way. He embodies the very spirit of everything that is disgusting and insincere in the English spirit. It's Stockholm syndrome proles like this that ruin everything.

>> No.5069381

>>5069019
>the importance of beauty in the arts
>beauty
>important
>in art
>and life
MIND BLOWN

>> No.5069401

>>5067714
The essay and Scruton's beef with what he calls 'fake culture' can be summed up by observing the main cultural shift of creative focus. What he's saying is that the components of culture are no longer languages, but metalanguages and in consequence many cultural products become admired for being contrived works that function only within the parameters of said metalanguage. He then derails his attention from the general and proceeds to elaborate his beef with a very specific side of this phenomenon: the fact that these cultural elements, when treated as metalanguages, often act like marketing and generate fashion statements, rather than acquiring an intrinsic value. Sure, there's beef to be had with this; however, there's also a lot of fun and emotion to be had with metalanguages. It surprises me that he fails to see this, especially since his life's work seems to revolve around aesthetics...

>>5069341
Ad Hominem arguments may bear a relation to the actual argument that is being put forward by the person in question, but you'd have to spend aeons before figuring out what that relation is and how it is relevant to the actual argument. And more often than not, it doesn't end up dismantling the argument, but merely creates another agument against it. I'm assuming you can differentiate between arguments and proofs. Plus, there are simpler ways to go about Scruton's argument.

But yeah, the guy seems like a proper cunt nugget.

>> No.5069410

I haven't read the article yet since I'm on my phone, but from what I've seen so far, Scruton is the kind of reactionary that just when you think "maybe this guy makes a decent point" he goes on and does or say something that makes you think he's either a clever psychotic or just a butthurt idiot.

>> No.5069448

>>5069410
Your criteria for evaluating what constitutes a 'decent point' is cretin-tier.
Also,
<"I haven't read the article yet [...], but [...]"

What's wrong with you people?

>> No.5069452

>>5067714
I think he makes a fair point, but then again Frauds has always existed. I dont think the "great" artists will remain with time, just as the frauds 100 years ago are not known now.

But then again, as someone pointed out, a cultural shift has happened where people think The Fraud is the actual art.

>> No.5069469

>>5069341
>Ad hominem arguments are valid
>ad hominem
>valid
Do you even logic?

>> No.5069481

>>5069469
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] fallacist's fallacy,[3] and bad reasons fallacy.[4]

>Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]

>> No.5069482

>>5069469
Logic is overrated.

>> No.5069514

Scruton is just beating around the bush on purpose to make his point seem more complicated than it is.

What he is trying to describe is 'Wagnering', the imitation of the real that is regarded by the majority of its audience and critics as the real because it emulates its surface criteria. It does this without actually understanding for what purpose the piece that is being replicated was structured the way it is, but that does not matter to the general public, because it doesn't really get it either.

>> No.5069522

>>5069481
>2014
>still using this
laughing professors.jpeg

>> No.5069531

>>5069481
>still not understanding logic
>thinking fallacious reasoning can be valid
kill yourself

>> No.5069542

>>5069531
I'm not saying that fallacious reasoning can be valid, but it can (coincidentally or not) arrive at a valid conclusion. Have you read the article?

Example: "Cats are equal to dogs, therefore the sun rises in the morning".

>> No.5069549

>>5069542
pls take logic 101 at least before you start shitposting

>> No.5069557
File: 28 KB, 429x399, 1385548060050.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5069557

>>5069542
You're an idiot, aren't you?

>> No.5069563

>>5069481
sure, what this says is that calling out ad hominems doesn't prove that the conclusion of the person who used them is false, but merely that the person who used them for proof is a cretin who doesn't understand that ad hominems aren't proofs and any conclusions that follow these aren't really conclusions, but statements that may or may not be false...

>> No.5069575

>>5069563
Yup. When you are making an argument, and that argument doesn't lead to the conclusion you are advocating for, that conclusion may still be the right one, but you're not doing anything to prove that it is.

>> No.5069591

>>5067714
>Yet it is surely clear that these sentences are nonsense.
Roger Scrotum confirmed for pleb.

>> No.5069595

Read the comments for extra lolz

>> No.5069604

>>5069591
Picauyne pettifogging. Engage with the conceptual core of his essay you lazy cunt.

>> No.5069613

>>5069595
wtf is this nigga's problem

>Relativism is certainly no answer to hegemony, but that still leaves the most important question unanswered - what is culture? What is art? What is knowledge? The closest approximation would be the scientific method, and its stable mate, Secular Humanism, but the former is a means of observing only that which can be observed and the latter has been banished to the wastes and would, in any case, be reactionary if called back from its exile.
>What we have had for over a century is iconoclasm and raving egomania. Which is to say, revolutionary fervour, complete with the rogues, psychopaths and mountebanks who hijack it and lead us back to a new conservatism in all but name, and usually more oppressive than what went before. I may as well book a ticket to Pseuds Corner when I say Stalin and Robespierre have something intrinsically in common with Damien Hirst or Lacan, but the fact remains that when you destroy instead of reform, you end up with pickled sharks and mass guillotining; opaque swagger and boots stamping on human faces.
>For smashing the idols produces nothing more than rubble and dust. We need to build and rebuild. The first step would be to accept that our humanity is fundamentally contradictory and we must take this into account in all our decisions and discourses. Secondly, to remember that anything that tells us only what we want to hear or makes us objectify others is both destructive and wrong.

>> No.5069621

>>5069604
The core is that Scruton thinks that everything he can't grasp is fake because he doesn't get it. Doesn't get much more pleb than that.

>> No.5069625

>>5069604
>Picauyne

>> No.5069634

>>5069621

He says the kitsch is replacing what it was originally measured by.

>> No.5069641

>>5069621
the core is that Scruton says that 'getting it' requires immersing yourself in a specific cultural sector so you can learn its metalanguage and appreciate what it's created within it. otherwise, most works remain inscrutable to outsiders. Sure, his view is limited and he sure is a pleb for holding such a position as an aesthetician, but it's more than "I hate what I don't get or like" and it deserves a discussion...

>> No.5069651

>>5069625
Yet more picayune pettifogging, inflating one's ego with trivialities like typos

>> No.5069659

>>5069651
>picayune

>> No.5069664

>>5069634
>Art is mirroring the development of the society that fosters it.

God Forbid!

>> No.5069676

>>5069664

But kitsch had no benefit other than to perpetuate the metaculture

>> No.5069679

>>5069641
>inscrutable
hehe

>> No.5069684

so much picayoun peffitogning in this thread

>> No.5069689

>>5069641
>'getting it' requires immersing yourself in a specific cultural sector so you can learn its metalanguage and appreciate what it's created within it. otherwise, most works remain inscrutable to outsiders.

Of course it took a man of Scruton's genius to figure that one out.

...and if you think this sort of thing is unique to contemporary art, you know precisely dick about art history.

>> No.5069692

so much picaynoun peffitclogging in this thread

>> No.5069700

>>5069676
Perpetuating the metaculture is it's own reward.

>> No.5069701

Previously art allowed beneficial concepts to be accessible to the masses, now it is stuck in a self mocking, "navel gazing contemplative" uselessness.

>> No.5069704

>>5069700

good to see where your argument breaks down

>> No.5069725

>>5069689
I admit I know dick about art history. However, Scruton's point about making art or other cultural products by metalanguages was that it is a form of masturbation. And he incorrectly justified this view by narrowing his initial observation to blaming culture as fashion statements, which is a tiny part of creating stuff within metalanguages. Jayz, it's 4chan's /lit/board, we don't have to put forward revolutionary theses in our commentaries.

>>5069659
>Diagnosing my words so you can place a cultural label on me and mould my ethos by your agenda.

picayune pettifogging continues. SCRUTON WAS RIGHT! YOU MARXISTS ARE FILTH

>> No.5069728

>>5069725
>picayune

>> No.5069741

>>5069725
>YOU MARXISTS ARE FILTH
It wasn't me.

>> No.5069789

>>5069704
What's wrong with a metaculture though? It fosters community and dialogue amongst a group of people with shared tastes and interests.
How is this possibly a bad thing?

Perhaps it isn't inclusive for the general public, but that's the public's fault. Why should art cater to those who have little interest in it?

>> No.5069806

>>5069725
>it is a form of masturbation
Can you articulate this better? What exactly do you mean by "masturbation"? Do you mean that it is self-indulgent or wasteful, if so that your previous statement about it being "made" by a metalanguage contradict that. Metalanguage is a language itself and language is not a solitary enterprises.

>> No.5069811
File: 41 KB, 500x534, 1403211174298.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5069811

>>5069341
>>5069401
>>5069469

What he's saying is that ad hominem is not always an informal fallacy. Ad hominem remarks can be *ad rem* or to the point of the discussion. So, if you're discussing Roger Scruton's character, or his "sincerity", I would say that the scandal mentioned is ad rem.

>> No.5069823

>>5069806
sure; all I meant by masturbation was that cultural products (whether they be art, philosophy or whatever) that are encoded and decoded within the same metalanguage are more conductive for fashion statements and narcissism than other forms of artistic creation. Also, Scruton is right in saying that narcissism and the fashion of it all can sometimes be outside of these type of authors' consciousness.

I think this is the cause of Scruton's beef with modernism and post-modernism, but cultural products that have value within their metalanguages aren't just that, so he's wrong and merely equating his initial statement with one of its byproducts.

>> No.5069861

>>5069811
as I've said before, ad hominems may reveal something about the ethos that is relevant to the argument. But it's still not proof. All it does is shifting the probability towards a false statement, in lack of better evidence that could constitute proof.

Also, it's not even 'ad rem'. The only way it the reference to that scandal would be 'ad rem' is if Scruton's article (the one that this thread is about) was saying 'I am not a self-interested/manipulative cunt' or something along those lines...

>> No.5069895

>>5069861

Yeah, fair enough.

The guy who mentioned Scruton's ethos was trying to shift the argument to the idea that a stodgy old moralist would completely fall flat if he weren't well-behaved.

>> No.5069907

>>5069823
Fashion statements and narcissism are neither invalid forms of artistic creation(indeed we have them to thank for many signifigant works), nor are they unique to cultural products which are encoded with the same metalanguage. By your use of the term and your reasoning, it would seem like Afgan Rugs or Navajo Sand Paintings would be likewise degenerate, for they too employ a visual code of reference which is not readily apparent to the uninitiated viewer.

>> No.5069980

>>5069907
>Fashion statements and narcissism are neither invalid forms of artistic creation(indeed we have them to thank for many signifigant works), nor are they unique to cultural products which are encoded with the same metalanguage.

I didn't say they were invalid forms of artistic creation, nor did I say they were exclusive tu metalanguages. But I'll elaborate, as I can see how confusion can arise from my statement.

Narcissism and fashion statements can be good motivators and have led to great cultural products (for lack of a better collective term); however, I was referring those instances in which those products and their appreciation along with derivative and reactionary art that follows are self-indulgent in that they rest upon intellectual one up-manship or a form of artistic sophistry if you will as primer motivators. These motivations can also hide from the creators' consciousness because-nacissism. I'm not saying these works can't have value, just that they usually have less values than others.

I was also not saying that being illiterate and not understanding a metalanguage makes its products degenerate. You can either choose to learn that language, or not, the value of those cultural products remains the same. This is where I think Scruton screws up, as he erroneously equates the point I made in my first paragraph with all metalanguages.

[gotta bounce for a couple of hours]

>> No.5070040

>>5069980
>intellectual one up-manship
You mean progress?

>I'm not saying these works can't have value, just that they usually have less values than others.

You also make the assumption that the value of a work lies in the motive of it's creation and not the artwork itself or the interpretation of it.

>You can either choose to learn that language, or not, the value of those cultural products remains the same.

Learning the language will obviously increase the value of a cultural product for you.

>> No.5070047

I think he makes some interesting points but it's a shame he comes off like an ornery senior citizen. I think a lot of this has to do more with the commodification of art rather than some of the things he's saying are the causes. When modern art becomes something for rich people to put in their houses, the apparent authenticity of a work is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is how much it's perceived to be worth.

>> No.5070415

>>5067719
This is the only comment I've enjoyed reading in this thread.

No notion has been as harmful to the arts and sciences in general than that of "authenticity".

>> No.5070924

>>5070040
>You mean progress?
No, I mean the 'fake' kind, that's why I associated it with 'artistic sophistry' and then explained what I mean by that.
>You also make the assumption that the value of a work lies in the motive of it's creation and not the artwork itself or the interpretation of it.
Yeah, sorry, I meant like it less if it matches the criteria I've detailed in my last post. I think self-awareness and honesty is important and I find the art of marketing less appealing.
>Learning the language will obviously increase the value of a cultural product for you.
I'd say it helps with my understanding of the product. I don't make judgements of what I don't understand. And when I do get it, it still might score lower on my system of values - see my previous point.

>> No.5070976

>>5069341
>It's Stockholm syndrome proles like this that ruin everything.
So you're saying that that type of behavior should be exclusive to the already established upper-class? People who grew up middle class can't smoke in their library without being insincere?
That's pretty classist of you.

>> No.5070987

>>5067794
>arguing that transnational bodies should not seek to influence domestic legislation because they are not answerable to the electorate
But he's right. Let each nation decide what it wants to do when it comes to smoking.

>> No.5070994

Obligatory superficial comment: I really like old men with a full head of hair, they seem to exude a smug confidence I respect on a primal level.

>> No.5071113

>>5070987
Meanwhile secretly being employed by international corporations as a propagandist to sway public opinion.

>> No.5071984

>>5070924
Art is a representation, which is not "real" by definition. Art cannot be sophistry or moral pretense because art is not bound by reason nor is it a method of reasoning. Art cannot help but be sincere. How can greed be insincere? If it is pretense as you claim than the artist has a sincere desire to pull wool over everyone's eyes. His motives may be even more sincere, depending on your view of human behaviour.

You do make judgements of what you don't understand. The very fact that you judge something as incomprehensible is indicative of this.