LML

Journal of Epidemiology and Infection puts the boot in. It was not me, it was my food.

It's not that people don't want to take his word for it -- rather, he is belabouring a point that was common knowledge in the first place.

Paul McCartney is said to be already upset with his new wife. Apparently she is spending twice as much on shoes as the last one.

In that case, no one will mind if I tell you that you are a bell-end.

Hi there! I'm Chambo. Could you help me out because Chambo doesn't really know what this illeism word is all about. I feel almost embarrassed recommending such a tech-savvy and well-connected guy this link, but many people find it useful: Illeism.

Out of curiosity, why the habitual illeism?

Unfortunately, unless one is familiar with both types of machine/platform, one is not in a position to opine on the relative merits of either (this goes for both Mac and PC users). Indeed, for all you know, 'well enough' may be 'not very well at all'.

The fact that just about every backpfeifengesicht hipster has or desires an iPhone/iPad/Mac is just an unfortunate corollary of the quality of Apple products. It says nothing about the product itself. I mean, if morels suddenly became the hipsters' food of choice, would it make them any the less delicious? Sure, Apple have massively worked the cult status to their own advantage, but I've yet to meet an Apple user who prefers non Apple products. For some bizarre reason, last year, I changed from an iPhone to an HTC Desire (shite) and then a Palm Pre2 (also shite) now I have an iPhone again

!

His Lordship is whistling through his hat there. Participation in The Good, as such, is a Platonic notion and has had no serious currency in modern times; and in any case, Plato denied that art participated in The Good. Hmmm... The Good, although having its literary roots in Plato, is not exclusive to Plato. Perhaps you prefer the term 'axiology', or maybe 'value theory', which certainly does have currency in modern times. In any case, I was not claiming that Plato was saying "Art strikes me as participating in The Good, in which case the idea that there is such a thing as a bad pa

Why can't it just be art or not art? There are all sorts of ungradable categories, why do you suppose that Art is not amongst them?

The only technical expertise in aesthetics is having the arguments well rehearsed. It may be that experimental psychology/philosophy will shed light on some of these questions in the future, but in the meantime there is no authority. These are moot points, which at once makes them so interesting and, at the same time, infuriating.

Art can be bad art or good art. Lower-case "b" and lower-case "a". As in of bad quality or of good quality. Whether art must participate in The Good is part of the definitional issue in Aesthetics. I don't think there's a widely held consensus these days that it must -- but as I said in the other thread, I'm hardly a master of the literature. Let's just agree that art can be defined as 'x'. What basis is there for supposing that 'x' is gradable? Isn't it just as likely that 'x' has similiar qualities to the definition of black as it does to the definition of temperature? If, on t

Is, "What is or isn't good art?" even a reasonable question? Doesn't it presuppose too much? I mean, even if one could establish that something were art, why should it be the case that that something were gradable in terms of good/bad? Art strikes me as participating in The Good, in which case the idea that there is such a thing as a bad participant in The Good seems somewhat paradoxical.

Citing maths and environmental science as analogous to aesthetics is not helpful.