No. This is stupid. Anyone knowing awesome from mediocre gets this.

Everytime someone tells me something is awesome, when it is little better than usual, reasonable
and customary, I think about exaggeration for effect. I want to grab these people by the throat and demand to know what their notion of awesome is. For example, a comfortable and successful bowel movement is not awesome. The Grand Canyon might be. Or, the borealus. When we place an order for food at a favored restaurant, that is not awesome. If the service and food is exceptional, we may reexamine our assessment. Awesome is a worn out algorithm, leaving us with the sense of nothingness. It is a further useless application of political correctness. If I sneeze, will you declare:, awesome? I truly hope not.

Riggle discusses this and more. You have more in common with his thesis than you think.

Riggle is not stupid. He pokes fun at his own arguments, but there is something new in the terms he is discussing, something most all Americans agree upon. Social openings are rare. Let's not waste them with wack. Fear is no longer the core awesome. Wonder extends to community where, lately, it's been tough to find.

Awesome Prius
-Nobody

The same goes for bowel movements.

Well. You may have this any way you wish, Tim. Awesome is over-used. In 1986, i had a brief relationship with someone.. She was a mid-level administrative professional, paid in the 65 to 70 thousand dollar range. Her boom crutch was UM. She could not prepare well enough to avoid this piece of presentational sleight-of-vocalization. Anyone in the business of presentations understands that a pause is better than an um. Awesome is similar. Seems to me. Same with if you thank someone for something and they reply: no problem. If there were a problem; could be one, you have no business in any kind of. person-to-person public contact. You are welcome is respectful and involves only one more word. .I do not care for new-speak. This has nothing to do with constructive change. It is about respect, understanding and uncommon sense. Common sense is no longer an option, it seems.

The chill of disbelief. No flowery language or rhetorical artifice. There. Flowery enough? Awsome-ness is another version of dramatic license---ways of making important the mundane. Kind of like um-ness, which I visited with an ex in 1986. These topics were tired, before they ever BECAME topics. To me, it is arguable that such mundane matters merit any sort of philosophical discussion. But, it is not within my purview to make these decisions. There are all kinds of ideas floating about now regarding cancel culture; history revisionism; and who knows what else that have peripheral relation to philosophy. Flavors of the week. These diversions have no place, seems to me. Their creation (or emergence) is distraction from more serious problems that current thinkers are loathe to tackle...

many of which are insoluable. And have been for centuries. So, rather than rendering philosophy irrelevant, new questions are posed; new problems, suggested, tongue-in-cheek, hopinig no one will notice. i noticed. Read some of what Burke has written about rhetoric. Maybe the light bulb will yet illuminate.

Um...OK. No problem. I guess I can't have it my way.

So it's not semantic bleaching. Your point is what then? That this post is not worth posting. Yet still, you post to it? I think the philosopher protests too much.

Let's use Burke if you want. You won't find a purchase there. He was a politician first, philosopher second. He talks about some points that Riggle touches upon (social connection, relation, and language), but he cuts both ways to get his table flowers cut. If that is your table, then cut away... enlighten me. But make an argument, Burke is all over the place as suits his need, unlike Riggle who is precise in calling out a new aesthetic.

I will hear Riggle out first... then wack it down as needed. That is the ethic of philosophy, and also kind of awesome.

Not sure we are on the same Burke. Kenneth is the one I referred to. An autodidact and college instructor who never obtained a college degree. Talented intellect, who played by his own rules and marched to his own drumbeat. He recognized the limitations of rhetoric, and was, thereby, the one to best write about it.

General remarks on the premise of this post. 1. I do not see awesome-ness as a matter for ethics at all.. Tried to get to that earlier with velvet boxing gloves, clearly lacking effect. 2. When I referred to the Red Sea incident, I could not qualify that. We were, I venture, not there.. 3. If, as I doubt, Jesus arose from his grave after three days, that would have been awesome, I guess. And just so. There are notions posited on this blog. Many of which I find dubious, if not preposterous. There are commenters with whom I disagree, ideas I find paradoxical---even though paradox is impossible, as a practical matter....something only explainable, within our limited understanding.

In any case, thanks for your indulgence. PT is still more fun than a headache. Or covid. But, you might consider breaking your repetitious mold..Moreover, thinking more deeply on whether there are ethics connected with things like awesomeness...There is no next big thing. Never was.
Good night and good luck.
Be Well.

Lastly,your notions of ethics and how those play into routine things such as algorithims, science and on, leave me puzzled.. Ethics are slippery. As is truth. But, that asserted, tools and advance of knowledge seem trancscendent to ethical concerns. I am not talking about abomination here. There are clear examples of that...which current thought would deny. Ethics, morals and the like are, according to Davidson, propositional. Subject to skepticism, according to Dewey's notion about the
shady nature of belief. Philosophy changes. But,not so much,at bottom. If philosophy is betrayed by convenience or some next-big-thing, it will not be the last time.

The word describes the phenomenon of awe, as in "shock and awe". Could this be an attempt to portray military aggression as "awesome"?

Anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. Depending on motive, we can bend meaning, any which way we wish. This is why I have been fascinated with Davidson's idea of propositional attitudes.
Desire, belief, expectation, and a dozen others are what they are at any given time, depending on contingency and a totality of circumstances. Dewey, notoriously, found beliefs shady. Ideologies twist meaning to their own ends. Religion ends up with Philosophy in University humanities departments.
Some say the humanities are thereby enriched. I am not so certain. Truth remains illusive.. for all of the foregoing reasons. And more,I expect. But, some might argue, this is all rhetoric. Sure. But, if we do not exhaust reasons, we cannot arrive at solutions either.

Awesomeness and its negation, "suckyness", appear at first glance to be expressions representing excellence and sub-standardness. This however seems not to be the case, as these latter can refer to actual or possible perfection or imperfection of objects, which can be judged the same way independent of who beholds them. Awesomeness, however, seems to include the intrasubjective phenomenon of pleasant extraordinariness, and therefore describes an event, rather than a person or thing. Considered as a propositional attitude (ala Davidson), when something is called "awesome", say the taste of an ice cream cone, a real predicate traced to taste sensations whose causes are describable by physical processes, is applied in the mind of the subject, i.e. in the context of a "mental event", to a merely abstract object, the generic notion of what an ice cream cone is. The causes of the truth of its awesomeness as excellence, say its sweetness and semi-meltedness, might be very different from the reason I call it "awesome", e.g. perhaps because I want to impress the person who sold it to me. And calling it "awesome" must be included in the event of its being awesome. I therefore agree with interlocutor Neuman that the event of something's awesomeness is readily approachable by considering it as a propositional attitude, which could be any kind of belief, claim, fear, aspiration, desire, etc.;' the essential point being that one of these is the genuine reason for the event of the awesomeness, and not the physical causes of the perception of what, in relation to the propositional attitude of the subject towards it, constitutes a merely abstract physical object which, while being real, cannot contribute to the truth of the awesomeness claim.

Jesus! Two interlocutors are greater than one. If I can find no second on the intertubes... I will resign myself to the proposition that Davidson is awesome.

Dewey have agreement? I am just trying to Riggle my way out of this.

This show went all over the place. Many of the places that this pre-show posting did as well - especially Ian's bit. I did read the book. As with most books I finish I found myself enthusiastic about it overall. Not all philosophy is deep. Some of it is unexpected. I actually think there is more to this than maybe the author thinks.

Sometimes abiding is awesome I think. Maybe that is my learning here.

All else aside, I just don't get an ethical connection with awesome-ness. Can't even suss why there ought to be one.

I suppose I have been tedious about this topic. Maybe only odious? All else considered, my life experiences, vis-a-vis, awesome, were not dreadful or fearsome. Fear and dread have not been associates with my own notions of awesome. I have never been to the Grand Canyon. Nor seen the Great Barrier Reef. I have viewed the hues of the Aurora Borealus. Found those neither dreadful nor fearsome. Now, I suppose if I had been present at the alleged parting of the Red Sea, I would have been puzzled. Or the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Such events are enigmatic---if one was not there.
They are, therefore, matters of faith. Or belief. In previous instances,, I have allowed that people have every right to their belief and faith. If those propositional attitudes attach to the things held dear, Que sera, sera. Awesomeness is overrated, by recent accounts. Everybody has their own album to do. I am just not that excited about it...

Not necessarily germain here, but since the matter of linguistics could be involved, I wonder if PT might have a hearing on modern usages? When ordinary words are toyed with to suit new notions, the mix can be humorous. For example, reveal being used in lieu of the more traditional revelation.
Or, the also-recent use of pivot, to denote a change of course. There are other emergent examples which show the influence of mass/popular culture. Linguists think about these things...have probably written about them. If you have done a show about this, I am unaware of it.

Yesterday, my wife and I ate a, low-end brunch at a local nook. It was a quiet, pleasant experience. There was a small distraction. At the hosting desk, the greeting sign read: we are awesome. They were not. It is a quiet, pleasant, low-end place to eat. We will, for those reasons, likely eat there again.
Awesome is superfluous hyperbole. But, oh...hyperbole IS superfluous, isn't it?

Since the initiation of the notion of awesomeness, I have aggravated some people with my remarks, amused others: and perplexed a few more. Deciding that my views are distinctly contrary to a plurality of thinkers and participants, I bow out, gratefully---no, not gracefully---I meant what I wrote. My favored term of approval has been : outstanding! It is a traditional and conventional term and conveys approval in a non-trendy sort of frame. And the thing I like about it most is the ring of sincerity. People smile and their eyes light up when they hear it. Sincerity still has a lot going for it.
---seems to me. 'Suckiness' just doesn't get there.