Aesthetic is not the same thing as sight. And my argument was not that aesthetic and meaning have equal 'importance', but rather that comparing the two in that regard is absurd in its entirity; partly because there is no such thing as objective importance, and partly because human consciousness would be a unimaginably different thing without either.
You want to settle a philosophical point with the presumed results of a hypothetical poll now?
I am saying that I wasn't saying that the stylishness of an opinion matters more than its meaning, but rather implying that all opinions in the religion/antitheism spectrum are lacking in intellectual usefulness, and that therefore picking the most stylish one seems perfectly reasonable.
It's like choosing the tastiest snack out of a selection of equally unhealthy ones.
Yes, exactly, which is what didn't make sense about it. You said those two things as if they were supposed to be contradictory, while they are in fact perfectly compatible (and both true).
Thanks! And ok, I get it now; the things you said aren't contradictory off and among themselves, but rather with a third and fourth premise, being that Amelia and Forrest as photographers are equal to the photographers whose terms I objected to in my statement, and that none of my objections would apply to working with them. Both of those are at least partially false, which explains the problem.
When my ideals change I will unabashedly announce it to the world. This is not true at this time.
Bookmarks