[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 220 KB, 1280x960, 1366162801724.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692641 No.3692641 [Reply] [Original]

Is it wrong to think good art is objective?

>> No.3692683

>>3692641
Would you agree with this statement:
"The quality of a work of art can be decided objectively using a set of parameters"?

>> No.3692692

No.

>> No.3692694

>>3692641
Of course not.

>> No.3692693

>>3692641
you are free to be retarded

>> No.3692700

>>3692693
>hurr durr all authors have equal artistic merit

You people are a tumour in the body of Western civilization.

>> No.3692709

>>3692700
can't wait to see babbys reaction when it finds out there is no 'western civilization'

>> No.3692710

i think this is art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

>> No.3692714
File: 72 KB, 300x226, image[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692714

>>3692710
nearly as good an art piece as my daily shitting sessions

which is a great compliment, btw

>> No.3692719

>>3692714

it depends. do you ever create clean shits? you know, those where you wipe and the toilet paper comes out clean, and you feel refreshed and cleaner than before the crap

>> No.3692725

>>3692709
>there is no western civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

>BAWWW why doesn't reality conform to my anti-white fantasies???

>> No.3692729

I can't believe people are dumb enough to believe in objectively good anything. It honestly cracks me up.

>> No.3692730

>>3692725
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

>>BAWWW why doesn't reality conform to my anti-white fantasies???

>> No.3692734

today op was retard

>> No.3692736
File: 130 KB, 612x792, on debating jews.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692736

>>3692730
>logical fallacies
Hi Schlomo.

>> No.3692745

>>3692736
>anyone who disagrees with me is jewish

>> No.3692746
File: 434 KB, 941x1024, Hanged_German_deserter_1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692746

>>3692736

>> No.3692750
File: 30 KB, 398x241, girls_laughing[1].jpg_131899.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692750

>>3692736
I couldn't satirize /pol/ better if I tried.

>> No.3692752

>Is it wrong to think good art is objective?

I will agree with you, OP, only -- and I mean ONLY -- if you can explain why Hamlet is objectively better than Hunger Games without using arbitrary or subjective values.

>> No.3692755

>>3692752
b-but an objective value is an oxymoron

>> No.3692761

>>3692752
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OX77Qv66qw

>> No.3692764

>>3692761
>first second of the vid
>'in my humble opinion'
yeah, don't even have to watch it anymore, you failed

>> No.3692769

>>3692764
With that kind of attentions span, this probably isn't going to be the right board for you. Well done for trying though.

>> No.3692770

>>3692764
e-prime, motherfucker, do you speak it.

>> No.3692784

The word you mean is intersubjective.

>> No.3692788

>>3692736

>>>/pol/

mullet detected

>> No.3692814

>>3692736
>that pic

Jews confirmed for master sophist race.

>> No.3692832 [DELETED] 

>wrong

>> No.3692842

>wrong
>good

>> No.3692843

Art is always subjective. Sometimes it seems obvious that a certain work had more effort, time, passion and vision put into it, and certainly I could go on at length trying to convince some people that Shakespeare and Poe are infinitely more pleasant to read than average youth-lit of today.

But I can't prove them wrong for liking Twilight, Hunger Games and David Eddings. I can only disagree.

>> No.3692931

>>3692843
But Shakespeare and Poe are better than Twilight and Hunger Games. Despite the outcry, and demand for a relative view where all four are demoted to an equal platform, Shakespeare and Poe will still be superior to Twilight and Hunger Games; objectively.

>> No.3692934

>>3692931

But how do you quantify that? I agree that it is so, but how can you objectively prove it?

>> No.3692935

>>3692931
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't mean it's true.

>> No.3692936

>>3692934
>but how can you objectively prove it?
Easy. I remove the leather glove from my left hand, and slap it with force against the face of anyone saying otherwise. The dispute is quickly resolved.

>> No.3692937
File: 1.28 MB, 1137x795, 1362293450022.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3692937

No, it is not wrong.

>> No.3692947

>>3692934
My God, man, you don't need a formal proof. TECHNICALLY it was thousands of years before anyone was able to prove that Achilles would, in fact, reach the tortoise. Does that mean that the Ancient Greeks all agreed that a running man could never catch up to a tortoise? Of course not!

>> No.3692952

I walk by that red statue (bottom corner of the right panel) on an almost daily basis.
It's very pretty and interesting to look at.

>> No.3692953

>>3692947

But you do need proof for anything to be an objective truth? "William Shakespeare was a playwright" is an objective truth. "William Shakespeare was a GOOD playwright" is a subjective opinion, no matter how obvious it may seem to us that it is true.

>> No.3692956

>>3692934
>But how do you quantify that

I think you mean "qualify."

>> No.3692959

>>3692937
>muh muscular statues

God, art is so much better now.

>> No.3692968

Hamlet has 6 more good than Hunger Games.

>> No.3692969

>>3692931
This. Total relativism is stupidity of the highest degree. It's infinitely worse in science than aesthetics though, and it's partially due to the scepticism that resonated throughout Europe with modernity, which has now become a bastardised justification to reject anything and treat everything as equal:

"If we place the table salt in the water, the molecular structure of sodium chloride will...."
"Prove it!"
"err.... Prove what?"
"Objectively prove that Sodium exists."

It is this idiocy that needs to be stamped out, and is ultimately going to be the downfall of Western civilisation as it spreads, like a weed, throughout contemporary society.

It doesn't take much observation to see the trend in movements like fat acceptance (as obesity is equal to a fit body), and people still buying in to crystal healing and homoeopathy...

"Objective prove that paedophilia is immoral."
"Objective prove that homoeopathy wont cure my cancer."
"Objective prove that blacks deserve rights."
"Objective prove that Shakespeare is better than EL James."

...and the view that total relativism, a 50% value to each and every instance of utter stupidity like this, is valid.

>> No.3692970

>>3692959
lol.

>> No.3692975

>>3692969

If you're going to make an objective claim, you need objective proof. No one is trying to prove "objectively" that blacks deserve rights. They try to argue for them, convince people. Not prove it.

>> No.3692983

>>3692969
That table salt example was dumb and you should feel bad about it. That is absolutely not a common problem in science at all and anytime something like that comes up in science people are quick to dismiss it to philosophy and carry on.

>> No.3692985

>>3692937
The stuff on the left is more photorealistic. The stuff on the right is less photorealistic.

>be artist
>camera popularized
>easier to stage photos than paint photorealistically
>conclude that your talent would be better spent on making things cameras could not produce

>> No.3692988

>>3692641
>Is it wrong to think good art is objective?

It comes down to this: you can think whatever the fuck you want, but if you cannot rationalize logically and deductively about why you think you do, your opinion might as well be writ on water.

What I mean is, OP, if you cannot produce logical reasoning on why "good art is objective", you might as well not even have the opinion at all. It would be a foolish inconsistency.

>> No.3692989

>>3692969
>"Objective prove that paedophilia is immoral."

Immorality itself may be open for debate, but anything that hurts other people should be fought, and pre-sexual humans ARE hurt by being forced into sexual acts, this has been proven.

>"Objective prove that homoeopathy wont cure my cancer."

This can be done. Enough empirical observation of different treatments will lead to conclusions.

>"Objective prove that blacks deserve rights."

This can't be "proven" objectively any more than we can prove that white people, or asian people, or middle-aged people deserve rights.

>"Objective prove that Shakespeare is better than EL James."

And this cannot be done. No matter what you do, you can't PROVE something this abstract. All it takes is for a single person to hold a differing opinion. To a certain percentage of the population, Hunger Games are better written than any of Shakespeare's plays. For this be conclusively untrue, you'd need to formulate a set of rules by which any art be judged.

>> No.3692997

>>3692936
... with your mauled corpse lying in a ditch, faggy gloves on the top.

>> No.3692998

>>3692975
I'm talking about the other side of the fence, not ours. The "you can't objectively prove morality; you can't objectively prove that blacks deserve rights, so I am going to campaign to have all blacks lynched from the nearest tree."

Yes, you are right that we need to convince people of the validity of the logical position, but it does nothing to prevent relativism as being the default stance for anyone who gets their views challenged, and the situation is just getting worse -- Infinity worse in areas with a financial incentive and a monster promoting the stupidity -- "Oh, you have cancer? Look, the doctors don't know anything, there is no objective proof that chemotherapy or anything else that they have works... but this dreamcatcher and homoeopathic water will work, I have anecdotal evidence. Re-mortgage your house, give me the money, and you shall be cured."

Relativism is one of the worst diseases our culture has.

>> No.3692999

>>3692989
>This can be done. Enough empirical observation of different treatments will lead to conclusions.

That's not objectivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

The main problem with this discussion is that no one in this world actually aims at obtaining objective knowledge.

>> No.3693006

>>3692989
>>"Objective prove that homoeopathy wont cure my cancer."
>This can be done. Enough empirical observation of different treatments will lead to conclusions.

>thinking empirical observation is objective knowledge
MMXIII

>> No.3693007
File: 32 KB, 613x533, 171[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3693007

>>3692969
jesus christ, what the fuck

>> No.3693014

>>3692998

I'm pretty sure you're imagining all this.

> "you can't objectively prove morality; you can't objectively prove that blacks deserve rights, so I am going to campaign to have all blacks lynched from the nearest tree."

Show me this person. And then show me that there are at least 3,000 more of them.

If anything, I see people calling for racist genocide having quite a robust amount of evidence and trying very hard to argue their position. Not going from pure relativity at all.

>"Oh, you have cancer? Look, the doctors don't know anything, there is no objective proof that chemotherapy or anything else that they have works... but this dreamcatcher and homoeopathic water will work, I have anecdotal evidence. Re-mortgage your house, give me the money, and you shall be cured."

What you've just described is not pure relativism. The homeopathy person clearly thinks their view is better than the alternative view, so they are certainly no relativist.

>Relativism is one of the worst diseases our culture has.

That no one has.

>> No.3693020

>>3692999
>>3693006

Okay, so it's not true objectivity. I was just making the point that you CAN record objective data (chemotherapy worked in so and so many cases, homeopathy in this and this many) and then build an argument from that.

>> No.3693021

>>3693014
>Show me this person
For support of racial genocide, either go to /pol/ or read a history book.

>What you've just described is not pure relativism.
No, it's the direct result of relativism.

>> No.3693025

>>3693020
>Okay, so it's not true objectivity. I was just making the point that you CAN record objective data
You cannot record objective data, as you can't know if it is objective data. and you can't objectively verify your recorded data either

>> No.3693032

>>3693021
>For support of racial genocide, either go to /pol/ or read a history book.

I have never encountered, in history or at /pol/, someone arguing "you can't prove objectively that blacks have rights so lets kill them all".

>No, it's the direct result of relativism.

What does that even mean? Please give us your line of logic.

>> No.3693033

>>3693025

Objectivity is the absence of bias and personal investment. Accurate statistics of treatment efficiency ARE objective, they are bare facts.

>> No.3693048

>>3693033
>bias and personal investment
are not the only factors preventing objectivity

the absence of bias is a hypothetical, a myth basically never before experienced in reality

>> No.3693073

>>3693033

Hi, I'm Immanuel Kant. I was making your position problematic before you were even born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

>> No.3693100

>>3693032
>"you can't prove objectively that blacks have rights so lets kill them all".
I'm not arguing that people are both using 'no objectivity' and 'lets kill blacks' simultaneously, I'm saying that the lack of objectivity manifests socially at different levels, and views like that are a secondary effect of them.

>What does that even mean? Please give us your line of logic.
Sure. This view (>>3693025) is the start. In science we use bayesian modelling - we assign a probability value to something based on empirical evidence, but we can never reach 100%. So, the law of gravity gets a 99% certainty of being correct.

As models are abstracted concepts, they can never be 'objective' and are only verified against themselves or other abstracted models. Unfortunately, this undermines the validity of them, and to a radical sceptic, there is no way to subscribe to any model without an initial 'leap of faith'.

To some people is seems sensible that something is objectively correct; to more sceptical people it seems sensible that nothing is objectively correct, but some things are more likely; and to a radical sceptic it seems sensible that as no objectivity is possible, it is impossible to have anything other than relativism because you can't be free from the bias of being within a model.

These views mean nothing to the average person, but the ramifications are felt socially, and a mindset that leans toward "All of my views about everything are equal to yours" prevails.

>> No.3693109

It's a bad way to fight for superiority in an argument.

Make actual points to do with the piece.

Don't just use the word objective. You might as well have just said 'it's better because I believe it'

>> No.3693116

>>3693100
>"All of my views about everything are equal to yours"

Who believes this? Show me one person.

Your position is nonsensical. It really is. You're saying "there are people who believe in pure relativism and this leads to people having incredibly strong beliefs about X". You're ignoring the fact that people who have strong beliefs usually gather proof and present evidence to argue for that position, why on earth would they do this if they were relativists or being influence by relativists?

>> No.3693148

>>3692683

>> No.3693157

>>3693116
>"there are people who believe in pure relativism and this leads to people having incredibly strong beliefs about X"
Exactly. I'm talking about the social consequences of that the rise of radical scepticism in the modernity movement has on secondary anthropological effects

>why on earth would they do this if they were relativists or being influence by relativists?
Social conditioning and way concepts and views manifest in the pre-conscious level, and influence behaviour ... but this debate would need to delve a lot deeper than what 4chan posts allow.

>Who believes this? Show me one person.
For a very basic example, -- though I could provide thousands -- look at the transsexual movement ( I will state now that I have nothing directly against it). The dominant antiquated view was that deviation from social norms is 'bad' and that adhering to social norms is 'good'. The "My views are equal" mentality (of which, obviously, we could discuss at length) breeds the counter stance to this. You just have to look at the statistics for people having hormone replacement therapy to become the opposite gender to see the correlation relative to time.

Sticking with 'bodies' the rise in young boys hacking their cocks off may be innocent, but the mentality behind it is certainly not. Something like "my morbidly obese body is just as beautiful as your chiselled gym body" has obvious negative consequences.

>> No.3693174

>>3693157

>For a very basic example, -- though I could provide thousands -- look at the transsexual movement ( I will state now that I have nothing directly against it). The dominant antiquated view was that deviation from social norms is 'bad' and that adhering to social norms is 'good'. The "My views are equal" mentality (of which, obviously, we could discuss at length) breeds the counter stance to this. You just have to look at the statistics for people having hormone replacement therapy to become the opposite gender to see the correlation relative to time.

I'm pretty sure they think their views are better, not equal. "You can either give me rights or not (you can either respect me or not, you can either kill me or not, you can either beat me up or not, you can either think I'm normal or not), it doesn't really matter, either is as good as the other". Which transsexual believes this?

Your whole position is based on a line of causality that you're not willing to defend, so there's no point in continuing this conversation. Personally I think you're batty.

>> No.3693186

>>3693157
>Something like "my morbidly obese body is just as beautiful as your chiselled gym body" has obvious negative consequences.

Actually, in this case the two are about equal. Look at the rates of drug use among those with 'chiseled gym bodies', I think you're find that the normative view of beauty they exemplify isn't exactly healthy either.

>> No.3693192

>>3693174
>Your whole position is based on a line of causality that you're not willing to defend
What? I have elaborated on every area you struggled with. I'm getting the impression that you feel insulted -- perhaps you are morbidly obese, or believe in homoeopathy? -- which is why you are getting defensive and dismissive.

>so there's no point in continuing this conversation.
I agree. Your insistence on keeping your metaphorical fingers in your ears is quite tiresome.

>> No.3693209

>>3693186
>Look at the rates of drug use among those with 'chiseled gym bodies', I think you're find that the normative view of beauty they exemplify isn't exactly healthy either.
Read the recent report by David Nutt on steroid use.

Either way, even if you want to make the case that morbidly obese people are less of a social and economic burden than gym goers, the point is that society is undeniably moving towards a point where views are being treated with equal weight.

>> No.3693216

>>3693209
>the point is that society is undeniably moving towards a point where views are being treated with equal weight.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.

>> No.3693224

>>3693216
Just because you don't understand it and feel some bizarre need to deny it, will never make it false.