What is the qualitative better thing being held forth here in American Idol? The voice.

That seems to be the general point being made about American Idol – all those people who are voting for Archuleta really shouldn’t be voting based on something so silly as the fact that they “like” him (good looks, personality, moves, with an OK voice), they ought to be voting for the better voice because it is a superior quality of pleasure to appreciate a good voice compared to a good face.

Why is it a greater (qualitative) type of pleasure to enjoy a good voice compared to a good face/body/actions? (just as a general difference between American Idol performers) The determination that the superior “type” of pleasure (voice) in American Idol is based on a personal quantitative pleasure. I know you specifically reject the standard that quantitative defines qualitative, but how is the determination made that a performer’s voice is a qualitatively superior thing, and all those teens just don’t have the right set of qualitative standards because they’re putting looks and actions above voice?

Personal quantitative pleasure; it sneaks in there.

“Right now, the one favored to win it gives certain people, namely, adolescent girls, pleasure because he is so “cute.” Another sings with range and expression, originality and creativity. He is a “better” singer than the cute one, but it takes some attention to appreciate what he is doing. But the pleasure one derives from his performance, once it is fully discerned, is “greater,” “richer,” and “more intense” than what one derives from the teeny-bopper favorite.”

Sounds like a qualitative difference being defined by a personal quantitative judgment, doesn’t it?

I think Christians tend to be weak in film; I think we (especially homeschoolers) also tend to be weak in the realm of fashion. I would love to see PHC start a fashion design major. A good outfit can be just as much a thing of beauty and craftsmanship as a poem–and it’s more obvious to everyone who sees you. Just because a lot of people pervert the purpose of clothes doesn’t mean we should ignore them entirely. (Deconstructed hems? Clashing patterns? Someone infuse some theology, quick!)

To that end, I would support Christians reading Vogue. It’s a study, as well as entertainment.

To say George Washington was a “greater” president than Millard Fillmore does not mean that the father of our country was president longer, nor that Fillmore was any less of a president than Washington. Rather, it means that Washington was “better”–he was nobler, his accomplishments were more significant, he played a more important role and did it well.

“Great” art gives “great pleasure”: the pleasure of learning something, the pleasure of insight, the pleasure of astonishment, the pleasure of vicarious experience, the pleasure of praise that God has given such gifts to mortals. Watching a car chase movie stimulates the neurons, but that kind of pleasure is, literally, lesser than what one gets from Milton. It is simpler (thus, not as rich); it is more superficial–that is to say, skin deep, as opposed to the multi-faceted pleasures that Milton provides–and so it is not as “intense.”

How can you know that for everyone? You know it for yourself, but you cannot directly know that for anyone else. If someone really likes the teeny-bopper performance, it’s impossible to say whether you or he is having the “deeper”, “richer” and “more intense” pleasure, unless you work out some sort of external comparison of indicators.

Is your pleasure from the non-teeny-bopper performance more “intense” than an adolescent girl’s pleasure of the teeny-bopper’s performance? At best, you can only use outside indicators as comparisons between the different people’s feelings.

You say that if people work at it, then their pleasure from the non-bopper performer will be deeper and more intense than their pleasure from the teeny-bopper. You are only basing it on your own perception, though.

Why not say:
“But the pleasure one derives from his performance, once it is fully discerned, is “greater,” “richer,” and “more intense” than what one derives from the non-teeny-bopper.”
(I don’t know names since I don’t watch regularly enough)

What sort of comparison can show which statement is true – your statement at the beginning, or the one immediately above this?

Also, I am talking about “aesthetic pleasure,” not other kinds of pleasure, such as sexual pleasure. (Though many works today try to substitute the one for the other, so that an aesthetically horrible movie can give people a shot of pleasure by having a pretty actress take off her clothes, but this is a testimony to its failure as a work of art.)

Remember that this all started not with Milton but with American Idol. What do we mean when we say one of these singers is better than the others? Right now, the one favored to win it gives certain people, namely, adolescent girls, pleasure because he is so “cute.” Another sings with range and expression, originality and creativity. He is a “better” singer than the cute one, but it takes some attention to appreciate what he is doing. But the pleasure one derives from his performance, once it is fully discerned, is “greater,” “richer,” and “more intense” than what one derives from the teeny-bopper favorite. Though the adolescent girl may experience a hormonal rush from the latter that overpowers more subtle feelings, I do think even the child can be taught to appreciate the difference.