Friday, June 02, 2017

Lnagugage

Currently cogitating:

Person A says: Your brows, madam, are on fleek.
Person B (Falstaff) says: "...thou hast the right arched beauty of the brow that becomes the
ship-tire, the tire-valiant, or  any tire of Venetian admittance."

Person A judges B to be stuck-up prick.
Person B judges A to be low-life scum.

Both persons are trying to compliment their lady's brows.

Both groups have developed parallel vocabulary and methods of expression.

Are they able to adequately evaluate the worth of a compliment (apart from the obvious...I mean, if someone is shouting at you "YO! CAN I HIT THAT!?! CAN I HIT THAT?!" you get the impression that you're looking good but that the compliment is defective)?

Aquinas says: quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientes recipitur. 

Take three persons and play for them:
1. A piece by Palestrina
2. A piece by Dr. Dre

The first person might understand and appreciate Palestrina but not be able to evaluate the merits of the rap song.

The second person might understand and appreciate Dr. Dre but not be able to evaluate the merits of the choral work.

The third person understands and appreciates both and it is only that third person who is able to make an evaluation as to their respective and comparable merits.

So...to what extent does one need to be versed in both traditions and their nuances in order to make an objective comparison and judgment?

---------
Addendum: the reason this question is interesting to me is because we make judgments based off of insufficient data all the time. Our intellects are amazing but we often confuse insufficient data with insufficient reason and reject accordingly (judgment and without enough apprehension). So, you get people hating a book or a genre without ever having tried to first understand it. It's from a foreign strain of thought.

It's also like missionary work - one prof said something like: "be sure that the other is able to recognize themselves in what you say of them" (which I'm sure is a riff from some Church document). How much do you need to understand in order to make a good semblance?

AND apropos video:

No comments: