I have nothing against your post (in particular, I’m not swinging that downvote hammer that I’m so fond of), but I must complain that this:
I value concepts such as beauty and awesomeness.
is a crime against communication. It’s meaningless, and I’m not talking about a pointless definition game. “Beauty” means different things to different people, but it means something vaguely similar to most people. Importantly, when they hear “beauty”, almost everyone understands what domain is being considered, even if they disagree on particular judgments in that domain. But “awesomeness”? That’s basically saying that you value valuable things.
To put it another way, let’s say that I’m talking about a Magic card, maybe this one. If I say X, I’m communicating Y:
X: “This card is beautiful!” Y: I might be literally talking about the art, or I might be indirectly talking about how the “flavor” (name, art, italic text) interacts with the gameplay mechanics to produce something strongly fantasy-themed.
X: “This card is powerful!” Y: I’m almost certainly talking about the gameplay mechanics. (It’s unlikely that the art is emotionally powerful, or something. If this were gallery art, that meaning could be more likely.)
X: “This card is cheap!” Y: I’m probably talking about the gameplay cost of the card (being cheap makes it powerful). There are several costs, I might be talking about a specific one or all of them together—context would make it clear. I could also be talking about the real-world monetary cost—unlikely, but context would make it clear.
X: “This card is hilarious!” Y: The flavor text (italics) probably said something amusing (especially likely if it were a Goblin card). Possibly, the gameplay mechanic does something clever (more likely if this were the card that says “you win when you have exactly 1 hitpoint”). In fact, I just noticed that it’s both an Artifact Creature and a Human, which basically never happens, yet fits with the art—that’s pretty funny.
X: “This card is awesome!” Y: I have communicated nothing whatsoever, except for the fact that I like the card. Unless you know what I tend to like—powerful cards, funny cards, white-haired prettyrobot girls—you’ll have no clue why I specifically value this card.
Summary: Whatever you’re trying to do, you’ll be more effective at it if you communicate clearly.
“This X is awesome” communicates, minimally, that X inspires awe.
It’s a perfectly distinct and valid component of an aesthetic. I would own to its presence in my own (pseudo)utility function, although I’d probably say “Burkean sublimity” instead for the signalling value.
I think you’re technically correct, but especially on the internet, the term “awesome” has been used more and more loosely such that it nearly does have the super-general meaning that STL is talking about. To say that X is awesome is usually just a strong, emphatic way of saying that “I like X”.
I have nothing against your post (in particular, I’m not swinging that downvote hammer that I’m so fond of), but I must complain that this:
is a crime against communication. It’s meaningless, and I’m not talking about a pointless definition game. “Beauty” means different things to different people, but it means something vaguely similar to most people. Importantly, when they hear “beauty”, almost everyone understands what domain is being considered, even if they disagree on particular judgments in that domain. But “awesomeness”? That’s basically saying that you value valuable things.
To put it another way, let’s say that I’m talking about a Magic card, maybe this one. If I say X, I’m communicating Y:
X: “This card is beautiful!” Y: I might be literally talking about the art, or I might be indirectly talking about how the “flavor” (name, art, italic text) interacts with the gameplay mechanics to produce something strongly fantasy-themed.
X: “This card is powerful!” Y: I’m almost certainly talking about the gameplay mechanics. (It’s unlikely that the art is emotionally powerful, or something. If this were gallery art, that meaning could be more likely.)
X: “This card is cheap!” Y: I’m probably talking about the gameplay cost of the card (being cheap makes it powerful). There are several costs, I might be talking about a specific one or all of them together—context would make it clear. I could also be talking about the real-world monetary cost—unlikely, but context would make it clear.
X: “This card is hilarious!” Y: The flavor text (italics) probably said something amusing (especially likely if it were a Goblin card). Possibly, the gameplay mechanic does something clever (more likely if this were the card that says “you win when you have exactly 1 hitpoint”). In fact, I just noticed that it’s both an Artifact Creature and a Human, which basically never happens, yet fits with the art—that’s pretty funny.
X: “This card is awesome!” Y: I have communicated nothing whatsoever, except for the fact that I like the card. Unless you know what I tend to like—powerful cards, funny cards, white-haired pretty robot girls—you’ll have no clue why I specifically value this card.
Summary: Whatever you’re trying to do, you’ll be more effective at it if you communicate clearly.
“This X is awesome” communicates, minimally, that X inspires awe. It’s a perfectly distinct and valid component of an aesthetic. I would own to its presence in my own (pseudo)utility function, although I’d probably say “Burkean sublimity” instead for the signalling value.
I think you’re technically correct, but especially on the internet, the term “awesome” has been used more and more loosely such that it nearly does have the super-general meaning that STL is talking about. To say that X is awesome is usually just a strong, emphatic way of saying that “I like X”.