I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
Yeah I’ve developed a distrust of those who overly rely on logical structures and debate style format. I’ve too often found people doing it to miss the point of what they’re trying to do. Logical analysis is a framework, but it’s one that leans towards myopia and is often prone to obscuring one’s actual thoughts and feelings behind a veneer of facts and logic.
Personally I emotionally can’t find a reason to call something art if it doesn’t come from an expression of a thinking feeling being. By acknowledging my emotions there and accepting that in something subjective they’re probably the main mental process deciding what I think I’m more in touch with what I think and feel than if I’d attempted to use a bunch of philosophy to understand my thinking.