I think you can lead yourself astray imagining that there’s a big difference between subjectivity and intersubjectivity. One is just a college educated term for the other.

More importantly, I think that enough time has passed that we can critique poor old Kant on this matter. When he says the taste has no interest in something what he is really implicitly describing is that taste is the province of rich people. If one has to strive or worry or self promote or anything like that, with regard to an aesthetic decision, it is easy to mark as tasteless. In most cases, the people with access to the kinds of habits that allow them to act in matters of aesthetic without interest are rich.

The main reason people drive themselves in circles, talking about taste and subjectivity, and college-educated words for subjectivity is because we don’t want to admit that it is bound up in class and upbringing. That and not the passage of time is why it is so hard to understand Kant on this matter. He’s describing a fiction that we agreed upon so that we didn’t have to talk about the influence of money.

▲

gopher_space 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> In most cases, the people with access to the kinds of habits that allow them to act in matters of aesthetic without interest are rich.

This isn't true at all. There's a whole world of artisans and fine artists that range from middle class to broke, and they wouldn't be in that financial situation if they felt like compromising their point of view for money.

▲

throw4847285 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don't know anything about Kant. Neither do I, so that's two of us. But I will take a rigorous if flawed approach to understanding the world then a glib and dismissive one, that thoughtlessly appeals to common sense as a cheap attempt to win an argument that you don't actually want to engage with.

To be more blunt, you aren't saying anything at all. You are just posturing.

▲

fao_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IDK, I understood them perfectly well.

▲

throw4847285 5 hours ago | parent [-]

But what were they actually saying? They just used the phrase "college-educated" and several synonyms as an insult to put themself forward as just some working class Joe who has no time for rich people and their hoity toity high and mighty philosphizing.

If I was to be charitable, I guess maybe their argument was that Kant only believed in subjective universality because he was rich, but that doesn't make any sense. Both Kant and Hume grew up middle class, and ended up in academia, and had very different conclusions about what "taste" is.

It's just a knee jerk reaction to dead white men philosophers and anyone who is interested in them as a bunch of elitists. That's not an argument, that's some kind of misplaced class resentment masquerading as an argument.

▲

rbn3 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

that's not what they said at all though, sorry but the only one doing knee jerk reactions here seems to be you

▲

ianbutler 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Idk I've read a lot of Selridge's comments up and down the whole post now and it really seems like any idea of taste to them defaults to classism and then they misapply that framework here, which is realistically one of the fairest arenas.

If someone likes what you make it doesn't matter where you come from.

▲

selridge 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn’t default to class, people just pretend class doesn’t apply at all.

Taste is often advanced as this subjective yet ultimately discriminating notion which refuses to be pinned down. Insistent but ineffable. This idea that you and I know what good software is due to having paid dues and they don’t, and the truth will out, is a common one!

My argument isn’t that it’s class. It’s that this framework of describing taste is PURPOSE BUILT to ignore questions like status, access, and money in favor of standing in judgment.

▲

ianbutler 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I hear you, but I at least try to disarm that notion. I even have a footnote talking about how taste is entirely group dependent and measured by reception so while I think your point is more broadly applicable I feel it has less to do with what I was writing about which is broadly in the technical realm I feel pretty meritorious.

	▲	selridge 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, that’s the concern. We are in the middle of an earthquake. The 90s was like this, but it’s bigger. Radical changes in what it means to build software are happening right now. That will without a hair of a doubt result in equally radical changes in what constitutes good and bad work. Maybe, just maybe, the thing that seems really durable (taste) is already getting put into a blender that’s still running.

▲

throw4847285 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, so what were they saying?

▲

selridge 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lmao. I love Kant. He’s great. I love dead white guys. One I’ve been banging on about in this thread is Bourdieu, who wrote a whole book on taste in France, Distinction. Here Bourdieu has the matter rightly and Kant doesn’t. Sometimes that happens. When you read a lot of dead white guys you find lots of them said very wise shit and also stuff that’s harder to find the wisdom in.

Here I don’t know what the trouble is. I’m sorry for calling your phrasing the equivalent of “hafalutin” (a word Marx has used more than twice—he’s dead and white), but what do you expect having come in to cloud the waters with 2 extra syllables to little end?

▲

selridge 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

zoogeny 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think your analysis is interesting but I would argue it has more to do with status than money.

▲

selridge 4 hours ago | parent [-]

They are both intertwined, often strategically. Bourdieu’s book Distinction is all about how (and when in life) status and money can buy taste.

	▲	zoogeny 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Just skimming the Wikipedia article [1] and it is appears Bourdieu's argument is bit more nuanced than status and money. It is a bit laden with Marxist jargon, but at least the abstract seems to place the heavy burden on "cultural capital" which is a more precise term than what I chose (status) but close enough to my meaning. Whether or not economic capital is actually transferrable to cultural capital seems to be another debate, but as the old saying goes "money can't buy taste". In fact, a newly rich lower class person marrying a contemporarily poor higher class person seems more likely. As the abstract states: "Because persons are taught their cultural tastes in childhood, a person's taste in culture is internalized to their personality, and identify his or her origin in a given social class, which might or might not impede upward social mobility." Money can't rebuild the personality that is internalized in youth, but marriage might give your kids a shot. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book) edit: also to add, the relationship between these is the underlying theme of The Great Gatsby.