/lit/ - Literature

Pic related

>>2666939
>forgetting quality is purely subjective!!!!!

>still thinking quality is purely subjective
>still thinking everything has to be objective or subjective
>2012

get out of my lit. now.

>dismissing rational arguments for establishing paths between objective qualities to a subjective overarching quality which then leads to a sense of taste
>dismissing articulated discernment when discussing these things

Seriously, just because something's subjective, that's it, there's no point? We've come a long way since De gustibus non est disputandum. Hell, somebody even knowing that phrase is a possible clue they might have something to say to improve the quality of my day. Know what the exact opposite of that is? "So, I was watching American Idol..."

yes your opinions are subjective, you think book X is good? ok why isn't that enough, why do you have to convince others you are right--

>>forgetting quality is purely subjective!!!

>>2666946
Those lips were designed to suck a dick.

>not realising that the only thing that matters is the view of the academic elite

The Twilight Series is thus of the same literary worth as Great Expectations or The Great Gatsby

This is like saying that shit is just as delicious as a cheeseburger because taste is subjective.

but I've put a lot of effort, time and money into my opinion!!! IT HAS TO BE WORTH SOMETHING, IT HAS TO BE BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE JOES!!

>spoiler, its not

>>2666957

>This is like saying that shit is just as delicious as a cheeseburger because taste is subjective.

Well I don't know about that example its too extreme, it is possible though.

It's more like saying, Bananas taste better than Apples.

You will find people who will argue both sides, just like art critics

>I really relate to the character _____.
That doesn't say anything about the book. That doesn't even say anything about the character. That's just a vapid statement about you.

>2012
>not knowing about intersubjectivity

>>2666957
>This is like saying that shit is just as delicious as a cheeseburger because taste is subjective.

Taste better to whom? Is more quality to whom? Is more artsy to whom?

The subject is the measure of quality, so its important to ask to who is it more tastey? To a fly I'm sure shit is more tastey than a cheeseburger.

To the right subject shit might be tastier than a cheeseburger...depends on the taste buds

>>2666962

hahah ya, I find that hilarious

yet they are still entitled to that Criteria, all criteria is subjective

The quality and appeal of art is subjective

>>2666952
There's a general set of rules and standards we hold art up to create an objective standard of quality which is then further criticized through personal, subjective taste. Thus, I can recognize that Moby Dick is objectively a good novel but subjectively I do not like it. In fact, we can debate whether or not it is objectively a good novel as long as we agree upon the criteria. Just because you want to no one to tell you Game of Thrones sucks doesn't mean that all opinions are subjective, it just means you're insecure and sucky (my subjective opinion).

>>2666934

Learn the difference between subjectivity and relativity.

>>2666974

>There's a general set of rules and standards we hold art up to create an objective standard

1 + 1 people coming together and sharing the same subjective tastes does not make objectivity .

1 + 1 + 1....people coming together....not objective

1+1+1+1+...+1, ad infinitum, people coming together...not objective

>>2666982

Then science isn't objective either, smart guy. You want to play the nihilist subjectivity game, let's go.

>>2666934
Only within certian ramifications.
Mostly, yeah. But sometimes... sometimes you are faced with something truly bad. Something that no amount of justification can make alright. Something you know, deep down in your black, withered heart, that it was written by an utter retard.

>>2666975

subjectivity is relativity where the reference point, or the point of view, is the subject himself

we can also have relativity where the reference point is inanimate, but that isn't relevant to this discussion

>>2666982
Well, you've stated your case without actually saying anything. I applaud you si- heeey! You're being an asswipe! Aw, anon! Why I outta!

>>2666987

science doesn't have to be objective, it just has to work and make accurate predictions

>>2666988
Don't be racist. It's a jew, withered heart.

>>2667002

But there's no way to know if its predictions are accurate. Problem of induction.

>>2667002
>it just has to work and make accurate predictions
Nigga, you don't know science, do you?

>>2667005

science still works and gets the job done, the fruits of its efforts are evidence of its accuracy

literature and art bear no fruit, in fact the fruit itself is subjective

>>2667015

literature is comparable to food tasting, not to science

some people prefer bananas to apples, and will argue about why their taste is superior

science is busy solving problems and healing people, the two aren't comparable

>>2667016

>the fruits of its efforts are evidence of its accuracy

No. Problem of induction. Can't overcome it. Never will.

You can't know shit about shit, when you get down to it. You wanted to play the nihilistic game, we're playing it.

>>2667021

You can't prove science has ever done anything except entirely by accident.

>>2667030
>science does everything by accident

what do you mean?

The law of gravity is subjective because OP's bullshit goes up and doesn't come down.

>>2667033

I'm not saying it does things by accident. I'm saying you can't prove it's not doing things by accident.

>>2667030

>problem of induction

that's a problem of method, not a problem of subjectivity

science suffers from both problems, and it admits it, yet it continues on being successful and useful.

if you can find a better method, we could try it, until then science is what we use to discover the world.

This doesn't help your position though, literature is still purely subjective, nothing is better than anything, being well-written and deep are matters of taste, purely

>realizes literature and literary theory are just matters of taste

>hurr durr science doesn't work, its all accident and false

>reverts to religious tribal non-sense

heh, /lit/ sure is bad at defending their subjectivity

>thinking those two propositions are mutually exclusive

>>2667064

>two propositions are mutually exclusive

actually no, the point is that they go together

you think a book is better AND you forget about subjectivity


necessarily they must be inclusive otherwise OP's point is missed

>>2667068
what are you talking about bro?
>you think a book is better
and
>you forget about subjectivity
aren't propositions, as they contain indexicals.
Obviously the propositions I was referring to were the objects of the believing and forgetting:
>some books are better than others
and
>quality is purely subjective

>>2667045

>science suffers from both problems, and it admits it, yet it continues on being successful and useful.

Prove it's useful. Show me one thing you can prove science has done. You can't.

>This doesn't help your position though, literature is still purely subjective, nothing is better than anything, being well-written and deep are matters of taste, purely

You have no idea what my position is.

OP is right, everything related to art and literature is really a matter of opinion, but the problem is there is no such thing as an informed opinion
every opinion about art or literature is just as valid as another, since there is no criteria for validity
unlike science, which has a test, the real world...science will always trump the arts, both in sheer beauty and in practicality

>>2667155
>there is no informed opinion

yep, other than just giving you factual info about a book, like its title, when it was published, the names of the characters, etc...Humanities professors and Art Critics are not equipped to do anything else, really, that is all they can do.

Any attempt to judge the meaning or critique the quality of a work is pure fantasy. They can judge it to themselves, how they view it, how they enjoy it, but thats it...

they might as well lick a banana and claim that its the best fruit--yes to THEM it might be, but not in reality,

art has nothing to do with reality, only fantasy and dreams

this book is well-written because of subjective reasons particular to myself

why are you criticizing other people's opinions while extolling the virtues of subjectivity

>>2667155

You can't even perceive the real world. How can you know science matches up to it?

Reality is subjective

>>2667189

if it isn't perceivable it is irrelevant

science doesn't care about the real world, science cares about the world we live in, the observable world

i think words like "real" and "accurate" are confusing you

>>2667192

Observable to who?

Just because two people observe something doesn't mean it's the same thing. It just means they agree.

>>2667189
Regarding truths, the artist has a weaker morality than the thinker. He definitely does not want to be deprived of the splendid and profound interpretations of life, and he resists sober, simple methods and results. Apparently he fights for the higher dignity and significance of man; in truth, he does not want to give up the most effective presuppositions of his art: the fantastic, mythical, uncertain, extreme, the sense for the symbolic, the overestimation of the person, the faith in some miraculous element in the genius. Thus he considers the continued existence of his kind of creation more important than the scientific devotion to the truth in every form, however plain.


"Kiddie" means two different things: one, something so revoltingly awful that only a child with no discernment could think it was good; two, something that was intentionally designed for children. They are not the same thing.

we've allowed public education to become an ideological battleground. Somewhere between union politics, politically correct school adminstrations and uncaring parents more concerned with themselves than the future of their kids, we let this happen.

I still read Stephen King. I never gave a shit that it was in the lower tiers or high tiers. If I want to masturbate with my brains I will stick a q tip furthrrmore intor the deeeeeeem

How come everyone has to act like Ashley Judd from Copycat?

>>2667201

Science has no access to the truth. Agrippa's Trilemma. Overcome that, publish it as a paper in an academic journal, and change the entire fucking world.

Or shut up about truth.

>>2667211
babby's first incompleteness theorem

Christian view man wholly dependent upon the grace of God (church?) as the exclusive instrument for man’s redemption, But for the Buddhist, man alone is the sole cause for his higher development (self liberation)

Grace exist as a divine power which exist outside a person and come to them in their attainment of their religious goals. Christians depend on grace. A Buddhist doesn’t.

“With Christianity, man is incommensurably small and the grace of God is everything; but in Buddhism man is God and he redeems himself.

Buddhism doesnt oppose christianity at all.
Some hardcore christians would say you must accept Jesus in order to be saved, but it's a way of interpreting things.
Jesus said/explained to people: I am the light, the way to the kingdom of the father etc.
Instead of thinking about what is being said people chant: HE is the light, the way to the kngdom of the father etc. instead of realising it could be them aswell...
Jesus hinted on several occasions you can see the father/god/heaven/nirwana/the devine through introspective behaviour, its just misunderstood by a lot of people.

In short: buddhism says the God is within, but so does Jesus.

>>2667213

You're a piece of shit.

>>2666934
>forgetting quality is purely subjective
To believe what you believe I'd have to believe that Miles Davis is no better than The Spice Girls.
I just can’t believe that.

Oh my god, the fail. I can taste it. OP you are a fucking moron.

>believing some books are better than others
>forgetting quality is purely subjective

A book is a book is a book.
A book does not become a better book than another of it's own accord.

People have moved a long ways past disproving OP.

>>2667211
Eh. Coherentism is the solution. That's not hard.

>>2668066

that's just like your opinion, man

>implying a million 10yo girls wont find spice girls better than miles davis
>implying miles davis isnt for fags
>implying you're not a troll

If quality was subjective, everyone would be paid equally.

Sorry, but art is not subjective. This is the great lie they've fed you to justify modern performance art.

A guy who gets on stage, smashes a live rat, and calls it art should be flogged in the public square and starved for three months.

>>2668137

Se we're using pay as the metric for quality?

So Stephen King is the great writer of our age? Stephanie Meyer is our Shelley?

Is that the way you want to go?

>>2668137

why are you mad over the fact that some people create art that others really like?

are you mad because you don't understand it?

>>2668137
> flogged in the public square and starved for three months
I think that was going to be his next piece anyway.

>>2668137
>>2668156

Kafka...?

>>2668137
Recognition is objective
Pay is objective
Quality is subjective

please understand the difference between these things

>>2668172
dude what qualities are subjective

>>2668182
Quality as in perceived value
not quality as in features

>>2666982
Well, actually it does. When an infinite amount of humans agree on art x being "best", it will create a set of rules that will be objectively best for humans.

>>2668192

not objectively, statistically

>>2666934
After critical evaluation one can determine the literary value of a book.

Please Deep&Edgy Don't Hurt 'Em

>>2668207
I kind of miss him, he would have destroyed these 'it's subjective' kids.

>>2668201
And statistics is subjective?

>>2668213

yes, all statistics are socially constructed to some extent. theyre far from objective

>>2666946

LOL I JUST LITERALLY


PEED

MY

PANTS


JUST A LITTE THOUGH

I MEAN ITS A LITTLE SPOT NOT LIKE IT RUINED MY CHAIR R NYTHING LOL BUT FOR REAL EPIC LULZ *HIGH FIVES* XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD


U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD


WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD
U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT hgXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh

xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH


HOOOOOOOOLLLLLLYYYYY SHIT

whatr the HELL

WHATA FUCK MAN xD

i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh

xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

OMGOSH

DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL

THIS IS A SHIT

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

A BIG ONE

XDDDDDDDD

A GRAT ONE

XXXXXXDDDD

>>2668215
Statistics on height, the amount of people buying x every week, the percentage of side-effects causing deaths in medical science. How are these subjective?

>>2668224

because they all start from a specific theoretical framework and can only encompass a very small part of society. statistics always work from the assumption of generalizability which rules out pure objectivity

>>2668231
But that falls apart when you claim the infinite amound of people.

>>2668233

only if that was physically possible. you cant make objective claims out of hypothetical assumptions

killing people is only bad because you think so, it's like subjective dude

>>2668235
The assumption itself is real, that should do.

Besides, how can you tell the exact population?

>>2668251

its funny because this is true but you dont see it that way

>>2668253

if unverifiable assumptions and hypotheses are enough to warrant objectivity, a lot of crazy stuff could be considered true and objective

i dont really get your last point, one of the problems of doing research is that you will never find a perfect sample representing the population. every scientific paper has confounders and none of them will ever claim pure objective truths

>>2668235
Sure you can. The claim would of course only be objective within its own universe, but that is completely irrelevant.

Nonetheless, you were the one creating the hypothetical assumption, and I just followed your lead.

>statistics always work from the assumption of generalizability which rules out pure objectivity
Q: If you were to study the effects of nutrition-regulation on white, young boys. And malnutrition showes a lack of growth, and over-nutrition showes nicreased height. Would it not be an objective claim that well fed children grows taller?

This study could be contucted in very large, controlled settlements, stretching over several countries - thus eliminating every minor genetic difference.

>>2668278

>The claim would of course only be objective within its own universe

I think were approaching objectivity from a different viewpoint. this type of objectivity, to me, is not the same type of objectivity OP wanted to discuss concerning quality of books

>>2668292
I suppose the relevant question would be where intersubjectivity crosses objective claims about general human behaviour.

And of course, whether one should praise the intersubjectivity of educated minds, rather than the average mind.

>>2668259
no, i understand theoretically that it's true, that all morality is subjective, but this is only true in so far as nothing at all is objective. so if you want to believe that, it's fine, but i guarantee you do not really believe that it's true and nor do you act on it in your daily life. to clarify, it doesn't fucking matter and things do have, for all real purposes, objective value.

>forgetting quality is purely subjective
I think time is a good judge. If generation after generation for 100's of years finds something of value in a book then good chance you will too.

>>2668378
>time is good judge, if enough people believe it, it must bet rue
no.
other wise christianity and islam would be true.

>>2668378
>>2668378


>time is good judge, if enough people believe it, it must be true

no.
other wise christianity and islam would be true.

nothing is well-written or good art, it's all a matter of taste, harry potter is LITERALLY just as good as Hamlet. This isn't even a joke, it's the nature of art

>>2668473
That implies literature has no objective.
And while the writer certainly has his flaws, you should read this:
>>2668372

>>2668537
>That implies literature has no objective

Islam has an objective, that doesn't mean it achieves it

apply yourself

>>2668540
It was a comment to the latter part of your post, not the former - which by the way is a very ignorant equivalence.

>>2666951

De gustibus non est disputandum. Yeah, that was real hard.

Making an objective truth from a value judgement is like trying to imagine a rock into existence.

Or like drawing an aught from an is for all my moralizers out there.

>>2668756

Objective truth does not exist. Facts themselves are objective (or are at least treated as such), but the evaluation of propositions in order to determine their facticity and the quality of truth ascribed to them are both essentially subjective.