OT: Crazy Programming

Gonçalo Rodrigues op73418 at mail.telepac.pt
Fri May 17 13:47:42 EDT 2002


On Sat, 18 May 2002 00:27:30 +1000, "Patrick" <postmisc at yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"James J. Besemer" <jb at cascade-sys.com> wrote in message
>news:mailman.1021636709.31088.python-list at python.org...
>> [...]
>> Laura's choice of a particularly subjective example actually underscores
>> the point.  Although there is a lot of inescapable subjectivity regarding
>> ranking wines, a general consensus nevertheless emerged regarding a great
>> number of "measurements".
>
>It's possible that this consensus emerges as a result of training, rather
>than as a result of any quality inherent in the wine. Or, on second
>thoughts, both: An aspiring wine taster learns to recognise and appreciate
>the very qualities that an expert has determined to be "good". To some
>extent, the choice of these qualities is arbitrary, but once they've been
>adequately described and considered authoritative, they can be recognised
>and, to some extent, measured. Of course that says very little about whether
>the tasters are recognising "quality", rather than "a quality". The latter
>seems far more likely to me (which in no way undermines the value of refined
>taste).
>
>

This type of reasoning is common in many schools of literary criticism.
e.g. The supposed aesthetic supremacy of a given author, say
Shakespeare, is more a product of historical conditions than anything
else. In other words, any supposed aesthetic supremacy is more of a
diktat than anything else, and the literary critics that disagree have
their visions distorted. I disagree profoundly with this. But, and even
more importantly, and looking at the Shakespeare case, the fact that he
is read, studied and represented everywhere, that sucessive generations
have hailed him as a genius, that the best authors since Shakespeare
inspire themselves, directly or indirectly, in him, is for me proof
enough of Shakespeare's supremacy.

Of course if you tell me that this is all complete bull, and that the
real story lies in some of elitistic/aristocratic conspiracy, then I
will not even bother to refute you. These type of statements, as also
mine above, are "unscientific", in the sense that they are unverifiable
by objective (scientific) means - insert pithy quote of K. Popper here.
But as I said above, I bet that the trueth lies - well, you know where.

Best regards,
Gonçalo Rodrigues



More information about the Python-list mailing list