Everything is subjective?

[Anonymous No.5687290]

Do you ever find yourself using adjectives "good" or "bad" when referring to a work of art? Do you ever use these words to describe something?

Do you ever say things such as "That movie is so good, I loved it!" and/or "Infinite Jest is a better book than Gravity's Rainbow." or anything similar?

If not, then why? How do you discuss things with other people? What if someone asks you if one thing is better than some other thing? Do you always have to add "in my opinion" before or after you called something better?

I'm getting tired of seeing this "everything is subjective" argument all over /lit/. There's no such thing as bad or good art. "Truth" becomes nothing more than personal belief. There is no bad literature, there are no bad movies, there is no bad music. Criticism is irrelevant because it all comes down to personal tastes.

Why bother learning anything in schools when it's up to you to decide what matters and what doesn't? What is relevant and what is irrelevant, it's all up to you. Why bother discussing things with other people when everything is subjective?

[Anonymous No.5687315]

>>5687290
>Why bother discussing things with other people when everything is subjective?
Formalism and or hermeneutics supply stable subjectivities.

[Anonymous No.5687378]

I couldn't do any writing assignment that required an opinion back in school because I didn't have one. I wish I wasn't such a pussy, so I could have just said "if an opinion can't be right or wrong, why do they matter?"

[Anonymous No.5687402]

>tfw because of /lit/ you can't call anything either good or bad anymore and you always feel as if every side makes a good point so you can't make up your mind and you're always trying to be as objective as possible meaning you don't have your own opinion and can't be subjective anymore and you probably lost your personality or never even had it anyway

[Anonymous No.5687439]

>>5687290

It's subjective because people come to books with different expectations. Not everyone wants to be taken on a literary odyssey. Not everyone wants to explore the human condition. Not everyone is happy with genre fiction. Books satisfy a wide range of desires, which is a big part of their beauty. They mean different things to different people. Two people can read the same book and come up with entirely different interpretations.

>>5687378

Opinions matter because they tell us about ourselves and each other, and open venues for discussion. A big part of exploring the human condition is talking to other people, people who you might not share anything in common with.

What do you guys think objectively makes a book good?

[Anonymous No.5687467]

There's nothing wrong with "good" or "bad" but they are scarcely criticism. They are gut reactions pretending to criticism, if you don't expand on "how is it good", "in what way bad" they will be dead ends. You are welcome to say "Shakespeare is good" but if that is all you say then you might as well not have said it. Unless you are going to explain how Hamlet is "better" than Twelfth Night you can keep that to yourself as well.

The "everything is subjective" attitude is a reaction against the empty authority of "Hamlet is the best play ever". It doesn't deny the possibility that it might be the best ever, it just demands your criteria for claiming something like that. You can claim Hamlet is better than Transformers but you are going to have to work to prove that, particularly as they are very different works, in different mediums with different aims. It might be obvious to you but if you can't explain it then it is a worthless opinion no matter how right it may be.

[Anonymous No.5687487]

Are you sure we are on the same board?

/v/
>people discussing why they enjoy a video game
>interesting discussions on gameplay and narratives

/lit/
>"I like this" or "I dislike this."
>shitposting including "lmao pleb", "ayy lmao" and "only fags like that book."
>whenever you don't agree with something someone said you namedrop a logical fallacy to show how knowledgeable you are, but in actuality you're not contributing to any discussion whatsoever

[Anonymous No.5687499]

>>5687290
Because under the collective flag of humanity we can discuss and contrast our own subjective experience of reality through commonplaces such as language, music, the visual arts etc.

[Anonymous No.5687502]

>>5687439
>What do you guys think objectively makes a book good?

aesthetic value > feels > hype > message > socio-political theme >>>>> symbolism & obscurantism

[Anonymous No.5687504]

What makes art good is neither the individual subjective taste nor some objective truth. It is governed by the rules that constitutes the literary institution.

[Anonymous No.5687507]

>>5687439
>because they tell us about ourselves
I have nothing on that front either.

[Anonymous No.5687661]

>>5687504
this is so wrogn

[Anonymous No.5687709]

It's a never-ending discourse wether everything's subjective or objective. Supporters of for instance objective morality derive it often from concept of natural law that basically is reason-determined analysis of universal human qualities and structure of the reality.

But then one would ask what if our perception of "natural law" is different from the perception of another man? Usual response is: "Then either that man's or our's perception is flawed and therefore invalid." Well, everything's cool, but then one would say "But how can we determine what really IS if how we perceive what IS, is always unique and differs in my perception from your perception or perception of any given person, the concept exists differently in our perceptions therefore it always going to be subjective and if it in fact is... then it's no longer universal as long as our understanding varies."

Well, there is no single response to this claim, but many try to challenge it. For example, borrowing from Jung we can say that our perceptions are built on one, mutual for all humanity collective unconcious that builds a "framework" of thinking and of perceiving itself. Therefore if we can claim that "what really IS" (dubbed as the capital T Truth often) exists outside of perception of humanity, independently then we may agree that our cognitive faculties are designed to perceive it differently, but on mutual framework of perception that is able to reach a closer or further image of "what really is".

Many armchair philosophers (contrary to actual philosophers) criticize Plato for his "theory of forms". I'm going to say that he's a genius. People either have superficial understanding of it whole or don't realize that theory of forms is actually first theory of varied perception and an attempt to reconcile it with objective reality. What has been described above by me is exactly the Plato's form (an ideal blueprint of "what really is", existing outside of perception) and us, watching merely a shadow and interpreting it differently (varied, flawed perception issue).

Ladies, gentlemen, we're in the cave!

[Anonymous No.5687718]

>>5687487
>>interesting discussions on gameplay and narratives
my sides

[Anonymous No.5687729]

>>5687709

neat, that was actually really insightful

[Anonymous No.5687733]

>>5687709
Something subjective will never have any evidence of being right, so naturally everything will end up being treated objectively.

[Anonymous No.5687756]

Subjectivism is a lie.

Please lrn2aesthetics

[Anonymous No.5687764]

>>5687315
What is the point of stable subjectivities, though? They compress the spectre from which works of art could be boarded.

[Anonymous No.5687767]

>>5687733

Why do things need to be right? Everything simply is.

[Anonymous No.5687770]

whenever people ask me "which is better" or "is this good" i answer with objective descriptions and let them decide if its good/bad better/worse

"is ASoIaF good anon?"
"there's quite a bit of soap opera drama, lust, betrayal, a lot of surprise deaths, disparate POVs that are meant to show all sides and scales of conflict"

"oh you saw The Drop? how was that?"
"characters with dark pasts trying to be normal and earnest, cute dog scenes, depressing depiction of life under the rule of crime lords"

[Anonymous No.5687773]

>>5687767
Something only is if it's right.

[Anonymous No.5687779]

>>5687767
You spoke like a true contemporary Buddha, fine sir!

I agree with you. If folks worldwide learned to understand this simple, unbiased perception, the extension of the struggle would be significantly reduced.

[Anonymous No.5687817]

>>5687770
nice, i want to see the drop

locke too

[Anonymous No.5687820]

>Criticism is irrelevant because it all comes down to personal tastes.

you miss the point. do some reading instead of just trying to come to conclusions based off /lit/ posts

[Anonymous No.5687823]

>>5687779
Xavier Dolan is a fucking genius.

5 out of 5 goddamn stars for everything by him.

[Anonymous No.5687825]

>>5687709

My man.. I've been sleeping on Plato. Motivated me to check him out again, thanks!

[Anonymous No.5687829]

>>5687820
thank you for this worthless post

[Anonymous No.5687852]

>>5687829
saving /lit/ from worthless discussion. it's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.5687865]

>>5687709

One of few posts from 4chin machine I'll save. I'm sick and tired of cunts on this board rejecting Plato without understanding him or spamming shitty le smug Diogenes stories about both of them.

[Anonymous No.5687876]

>>5687820

I think the realm of 'criticism' just skirts the issue. From my understanding, critics primarily analyze a work based on the context through which a the art was created (see: all major art movements since the 19th century). However criticism don't seek to determine what makes 'good' art, but rather why this art is important relative to the rest of the artistic landscape.

[Anonymous No.5687879]

>>5687865
I save a lot of posts from 4chan. I find a way to implement them into my books.

I'm going to sell all those ideas as my own and become a famous writer.

[Anonymous No.5687901]

>>5687879

ladies and gentleman... Slavoj Zizek!

[Anonymous No.5687909]

>>5687901

[Anonymous No.5687912]

>>5687709

Although I generally agree you re-designed Jung's idea of collective unconcious. Smoothly enough so I have no gripe.

>>5687901

mild kek

[Anonymous No.5687917]

>>5687779
It's hard to tell you're being sarcastic by the text alone but your image at least clears that up.

[Anonymous No.5687933]

>>5687502
But the deliberate obscurantism is the only thing that's good about The Faerie Queene

[Anonymous No.5687953]

>>5687909
This is so cringeworthy.

Zizek is the worst meme on /lit/, never post him again.

[Anonymous No.5687960]

>>5687933
What about the deliberate obscurantism in Infinite Jest?

[Anonymous No.5687966]

Subjectivity is purely a product of language. It only "arises" when you start throwing around terms without defining them.

[Anonymous No.5687969]

"Good" is a linguistic construct that you can employ to describe something. Good is not an inherent property of that which you describe, nor is it a form or essence in the platonic or Aristotelian sense, it is just a linguistic construct that you can superimpose.

Subjectively, you can describe anything as good or not-good, and in the Wittgensteinian sense this is the same as saying "yay" or "boo" when different things are presented to you.

You also have the option of inter-subjectivity, where a collection of other constructs are attached to a created definition of good: "A good film, in out model, will have metaphor play, multiple themes, and a non-linear plot," for example, and you can label things as 'good' in relation to that.

On a societal level, people generally employ both.

>What makes something [attain the linguistic construct] good?

Possessing attributes that appeal to your subjective model, one of many inter-subjective models, or a combination of both.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5687974]

>>5687933
>the deliberate obscurantism is the only thing that's good about The Faerie Queene

what
it's amazingly written

>O but (quoth she) great griefe will not be tould,
>And can more easily be thought then said.
>Right so (quoth he), but he that never would,
>Could never: will to might gives greatest aid.
>But griefe (quoth she) does greater grow displaid,
>If then it find not helpe, and breedes despaire.
>Despaire breedes not (quoth he) where faith is staid.
>No faith so fast (quoth she) but flesh does paire.
>Flesh may empaire (quoth he) but reason can repaire.

also its obscurantism isn't delibirate, spenser used archaic language for stylistic purposes, i doubt he realized how hard it will be to read him in 400+ years

[Anonymous No.5687977]

>>5687966

Oh, that's perhaps one of few things I like about analytics. They make relativists amazingly asspained.

[Anonymous No.5687991]

>>5687974
English is not my first language and I can't understand this.

[Anonymous No.5687997]

Everything is subjective unless put into a framework where it can judged. For example, morality is subjective and meaningless unless put within a framework like Christianity or the NAP. I think the main function of philosophy is to develop these frameworks.

[Anonymous No.5688003]

>>5687991
Many people even with English as a first language wouldn't be able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.5688011]

>>5687290
>Do you ever find yourself using adjectives "good" or "bad" when referring to a work of art?
I never do.

Does anyone do this?

[Anonymous No.5688030]

>>5688011

If I critisize something, I try to state what my problem with it is in physical terms. For example "the color's clash" or "the author uses too many unnecessary words". If people on 4chan did this instead of just fucking greentexting >good with a constanza image, I think it would raise the level of discourse. Of course they won't, because debates in 4chan are based on gets the most laughs rather than making logical arguments.

[Anonymous No.5688053]

>>5687969

Let me ask you then, we for example pre-suppose "logic" in everything we do, no matter it's a political debate, philosophical dispute or mathematical equation. If we through discernment and study of reality (or any other subject) come to conclusion that it possesses certain quality and then we're presented with another subject with this very quality flawed or lacking, what do we call it? "Not-good"? Yes, following your logic it would be expression of appeal to your subjective model. Although if your subjective model is in accordance with reality and the one presented to you lacks properties that makes it in accordance with reality... what do we call it then?

I'm talking about something absolutely abstract. But imagine a man commiting a logical fallacy. Would pointing out his mistake be an expression of appeal to my subjective model? I don't think so as long as "correct reasoning" is presupposed in everything we do.

Also, what do you think about this guy >>5687709 ? His explanation seems a bit off, but I agree with the part about cognition being unifed in one structure on the deeper level.

[Anonymous No.5688056]

>>5688030
oh the stainless steel knees! You do realize that the word "unnecessary" in your statement is itself unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.5688062]

>>5688011

Yeah, you know, most critiques of art.

>they judge art's aesthetics

Yes, but aesthetic quality is irremovable quality used in qualification of artwork as bad/good.

[Anonymous No.5688080]

You comment on the components of the work, not about tiers. You find connections of style or structure, you try to understand how and why each went in a certain direction and what differences that brings in your understanding.

That's without going back to external texts and comparing the works with their context, consider how they work with certain author's structures and ideas or propose new interpretations of those external texts through the lens of those works.

When you say "good" or "bad" you might as well be humming a sad song.

"Good" and "bad" and "better" and "worse" are discussion stoppers, you don't get anything from the person who uses them and you can expand upon them.

[Anonymous No.5688161]

"Everything is subjective" is just another of the nascent intellectual's red pill mantras. Santa Claus is a lie, life is meaningless and everything is subjective.

All these things may be valuable things to consider, but if mathematics started and ended at "we can't prove 1 + 1 = 2 since they're all subjective constructs," I wouldn't be typing this, you wouldn't be reading this and there wouldn't be a fuckin' American flag sticking in the moon right now.

Subjectivity and meaninglessness aren't the end of philosophy, they're what we acknowledge at the beginning before moving on to more productive discussions.

[Anonymous No.5688170]

>>5687764
Happens whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.5688174]

>>5688161
How can things be subjective when there's only one reality?

[Anonymous No.5688179]

>>5688161
>if mathematics started and ended at "we can't prove 1 + 1 = 2 since they're all subjective constructs," I wouldn't be typing this

The funny thing about that, is mathematics did try to prove "1 + 1 = 2" as rigorously and completely as possible. They discovered they couldn't, or at least as not as strongly as they had hoped.

Didn't stop math from working though.

>Subjectivity and meaninglessness aren't the end of philosophy, they're what we acknowledge at the beginning before moving on to more productive discussions.

This.

[Anonymous No.5688207]

>>5688179
>Subjectivity and meaninglessness aren't the end of philosophy, they're what we acknowledge at the beginning before moving on to more productive discussions.
beautiful, source?

[Anonymous No.5688209]

>>5688174
What do you mean by "one reality"?

[Anonymous No.5688216]

>>5687767

Everything simply is; according to your own worldview/unconscious ideology.

If we were omniscient of everything that happens, we could have infinite right judgement about everything that happens!. We could say if something is inherently wrong or right in every struggle.

Everything simply is, is like permitting the stronger guy to hit the weaker one, simply because the stronger one choosed to do his action by simply doing it for no reason. And that's completely right by your stance.

[Anonymous No.5688217]

>>5688179
There is nothing to move on to after deconstructionism.

[Anonymous No.5688220]

>>5688207
Me, I guess? I have no background in philosophy but I'm probably ripping someone off

[Anonymous No.5688230]

>>5688217
Except we've got to have something to work with, even after everything's been deconstructed.

Which is kinda the problem we all face.

[Anonymous No.5688245]

The main problem with identifying with knowledge, is losing common sense.

You lose common sense, and you lose understanding.

[Anonymous No.5688259]

>>5688220
It was a nice sucint sentence, I was expecting some pop writer, maybe on the fedora team.

[Anonymous No.5688260]

>>5687953

Why?

His movie wasn't that bad honestly, he actually succeded in simplying terms and implementing it on some movies

[Anonymous No.5688264]

>>5688217
Because deconstruction isn't an end in itseld, it's to be apliead and developed through use. It's also like 30 years ago, calm down and stop trying to get the next new thing, literary analisis isn't cocacola

[Anonymous No.5688270]

>>5688245
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.5688276]

>>5687402

[Anonymous No.5688284]

>>5687402
I was born that way. Ironically, it presented the most problems for English class.

[Anonymous No.5688287]

>>5688245
>Common sense is anything besides indoctrination
I'm sure you think washing your hands is common sense, or cleaning your food, or being nice to the people you like.

[Anonymous No.5688289]

>>5688260
He's popularizing philosophy and dumbing it down in the process. It's like he's trying to make it as accessible as possible to every fucking pleb out there, now everyone thinks they "understand" philosophy and know a lot.

He became a "lol look at me i like philosophy i'm such a nerd ^__^" type to others. That's how people see him. He's actually a decent pop philosopher, but the "pop" part is also what ruined him.

He's like one of those 'public' scientists, who accomplish nothing for science but flaunt basic facts which anyone with a brain knows anyway. Wow, photons have a lifespan of zero from their own perspective? Thanks a lot, Neil deGrasse Tyson! Everyone totally didn't already know this in middle school!

And Zizek contributed *nothing* to philosophy over all these years. Takes real talent to work for so long and still produce nothing.

[Anonymous No.5688291]

>>5687402
>Being unable to express your ideas without making a value judgement
Do you work for a news station?

[Anonymous No.5688294]

>>5688259
>implying I'm not Dicky Dawkins, boy wonder guardian of truth and euphoria
AMA

[Anonymous No.5688297]

>>5688291
How do you do it?

[Anonymous No.5688303]

>>5688289
>He's making me less special
Stop identifying yourself for your interests and be somebody. You sound 100% like people in /v/ getting mad about casuals.

>Zizek didn't contribute anything
Even if you don't like him he's on of the biggest specialists in Lacan. He already had a PhD and tenure before becoming a meme.

[Anonymous No.5688309]

>>5688303
>Stop identifying yourself for your interests
thats what makes us who we are

[Anonymous No.5688310]

>>5688309
No, it makes you who you are.

[Anonymous No.5688311]

>>5688309
partially

[Anonymous No.5688313]

>>5688297
You use words to express the things you are thinking that make you feel something deserves that judgment value.
>Fred Vogel
>He's bad!
No, he makes ultra realistic gore and creates reprehensible situations to a level where you can't tell if it's an act to shock or if he actually enjoys real torture.

>The Day of the Triffids
>It's good!
No, it presents an in depth take to a very implausible scenario, the characters behave realistically in a general sense and you can easily see yourself doing the same things are at least attempting to. The story goes beyond the point where a general disaster movie would stop and creates a sort of "day to day" life after the end of civilization.

>>>>
You see, you use your words, that's why we have them.

[Anonymous No.5688315]

>>5688303
>>He's making me less special
It's true though.

[Anonymous No.5688323]

>>5688313
It's hard, I have to work more on it. I hope it's something that can be learned, I don't want to be like this forever. I feel crippled.

[Anonymous No.5688326]

>>5688309
At some point yes, but your take on those interests is what matters. Otherwise, as a phil enthusiast, you should stop existing until every single writer on the subjects you care about dies since you're just a lesser copy of them.

[Anonymous No.5688341]

>>5688323
Don't be a lazy shit, it's just thinking. How lazy can you even get, you fuck?

[Anonymous No.5688345]

>>5688341
I can't articulate my thoughts into words.

[Anonymous No.5688347]

>>5688345
You're doing it now! Stop with the excuses or at least pracice making them a couple of sentences long. Just explain yourself and think why you think that, replace tv time for thinking time.

[Anonymous No.5688361]

>>5688347
I read a lot, but I'm still linguistically retarded, it's like there's a disconnection between my mouth and brain. Or maybe it's just that my critical thinking skills are zero, I can't tell yet, I'm still trying to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.5688376]

>>5688361
Seriously, honey, you need to practice. You have 4chan for that. Just express yourself and with time you'll be better and better at expressing yourself.
You can also make a shitty blog about books that no one will read, and analyse them or something.

[Anonymous No.5688377]

>>5688376
Thanks, do you want to be my girlfriend?

[Anonymous No.5688394]

>>5688377
I only /u/ right now, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.5688411]

>>5687290

"Good" and "bad", I would argue, are human abstracts. One man's "good" is another man's "bad". Good and evil, as they stand, are just point of view.

If I ever say a movie is "bad", which I never do, I say it is "terrible", but I make a point to reference the misguided directing, poor choice of cast, regurgitated plots (I absolutely detest romantic "comedies" for this reason), et cetera.

Art truly is in the eye of the beholder, it is not a necessity, it is transcendence. It is really blind to ignore the fact there is indeed cultural abominations out there. (See ANY film or work by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for a great example)

[Anonymous No.5689509]

>>5688216
Yes, I agree. It is completely right.

[Anonymous No.5690544]

>>5688394
What is your anime of the year?

[Anonymous No.5690558]

>>5690544
I don't watch or read stuff just because it's new. I'm finishing Ashita no Joe 1 right now.
The only thing being broadcasted I'm sort of following is Blue Blazes. I'd love to have friends to compete against and say "fighting strength isn't determined by differences in mobile suit performance" but I'm no aspie and people is nice to each other most of the time so I only laugh a bit when that kind of lines could be used.
You?

[Anonymous No.5690564]

>>5690558
Is Ashita no Joe better than Hajime no Ippo?

[Anonymous No.5690588]

>>5687290
If everything was subjective, the word objective wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.5690591]

>>5690564
Absurdely different.
AnJ is all about the drama of being a nobody and finding a way to focus the angriness of the youth into something with merit. Joe has to learn to calm down and do thing the right way, and even then it's a bit too late.
A good example is how you get to see when he fails to get his boxing license and almost kills a guy, but when he does it right and passes it's just mentioned and it jumps straight to everyone making a party and Joe still worrying about how he couldn't actually beat the guy he almost killed.

HnI is all about the boxing, the author used to be a second and you can tell he knows how a fight should go and how to make it look great from up close. Most of the plot doesn't even matter, it's just to present the stakes (usually Ippo figts a guy who really really needs to win, while you want Ippo to win because he's the underdog and MC, and at the end it all works out for everyone). Sadly HnI goes into a really shone way halfway through the manga both in power creeping (super powers everywhere) and lack of development (I think it has been more than a year since Ippo's last fight).
In AnJ I'd recommend reading the manga, the anime suffers a ton of 70's classical issues and there's little to get from them, while HnI is quite better in anime form (less rambling, more to the point, incosistences get corrected) and it's not an issue so little has been adapted since everything after that point is pretty downhill and it hasn't ended in manga form either.

Remember to sage when posting offtopic.

[Anonymous No.5690594]

Thanks to whoever took the time to do this.

[Anonymous No.5690599]

>>5688217
But deconstruction is itself always on the move.
Though I think Nietzsche's texts still haven't been exhausted with interpretation, there's something in there that can be made to move beyond deconstruction.

[Anonymous No.5690606]

>>5690594
But any model will end up being too small to follow something with constant innovation or evolution. If anything it can only help you interact among a small set of samples. Artistic value in some post-modern takes comes after the experience, so if something generated an impact you then try to reconstruct the context that generated it to understand it. But it comes second to the act.

[Anonymous No.5690615]

>>5690599
I don't understand why there should be something after deconstruction. First it's a fairly new thing and it will take centuries to apply every variant to every important work of art, if someone expected that to be the way to finish it. But also there shouldn't be an after bron from it just because it came from constructivism; there could and probably will) appear another way of analysing text that has its own characteristics and its own point of origin.

[Anonymous No.5690633]

>>5688303
>>Zizek didn't contribute anything
>Even if you don't like him he's on of the biggest specialists in Lacan. He already had a PhD and tenure before becoming a meme.
The thing is he's way too defined by Hegel, Lacan and Marx. Everything he says seems to be merely an application or weak synthesis of (those three) past philosophers.
I think among contemporaries Badiou and Meillassoux are far far more interesting, even if I don't really understand them yet and/or don't agree with them.

[Anonymous No.5690669]

>>5690633
I'm not saying he is the defining philosopher of our times, but he's still a respectable academic and has contributed to our understanding and aplication of bigger men. Even if it's not flashy that's a huge part of continental philosophy, and philosophy in general. The teams working in the THC or whatever are trying to prove the theories of Higgs, it isn't a lesser task just because they aren't putting their names in the things they find.

[Anonymous No.5691872]

Some film is objectively bad. The sooner the "IT ALL SUBJECTIVE ;)" babbies go back to their video game board the better.

You can have an objectively bad table you can have an objectively bad film. It doesn't matter how many plebes come out of the woodwork who are uneducated about tables who say "I like it so that means it's good".

Art has just as much of a functional purpose as a table. Art is there to battle the degenerate sickness as the heart of society. A film that enables this sickness is objectively bad.

[Anonymous No.5691895]

>>5691872
>Art is there to battle the degenerate sickness as the heart of society.
I was taking you seriously up to that point, so a decent 6/10

But, just to have another thing to add to your discourse, remember that Plato was the first to try to define beauty. Up to that point sophists defended the idea of absolute relativity in the apreciation of beauty.

[Anonymous No.5691914]

>>5690588

Why does the word 'non-existent' exist?

[Anonymous No.5691923]

>>5691914
Because you're making it out of two existing words?

[Anonymous No.5691935]

>>5691923

Dunno if 'non' really counts as a word. Point is that nothing that doesn't exist exists, and so by that guy's logic, the word 'non-existent' shouldn't exist, either.

[Anonymous No.5691942]

>>5691935
But you are constructing non-existant by adding negation to existence, that isn't a word, your proof is absurdly stupid.

[Anonymous No.5691951]

>>5691942
>that isn't a word

Yes, it is. As are 'multi-coloured', 'polyphonic' and 'tripartite'.

[Anonymous No.5691956]

>>5687773
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.5691963]

>>5687402
>>I feel this feel

[Anonymous No.5691995]

A man is receiving fellatio from a beautiful woman. Her expert ministrations produce from him a series of moans, susurrous outpourings and glottal extrusions. His climax nearing - approaching, though not yet having crossed, the orgasmic event horizon - he curls a finger around her ear and says "Oh, that's good."

Immediately stopping, she looks up and says "'Good'? That seems pretty arrogant, if you ask me. If you have any basis for supposing it to be universally and absolutely 'good', I'd like to hear it. You need a bloody good reason to ju-'

Leaping to his feet, he slaps her across her face. "A 'GOOD' reason?" he bellows. "Do you mean 'good' for YOU or 'good' for all conceivable recipients in all conceivable circumstances? And if the former, why, how DARE you arrogate the term 'good' to describe your own perspective. Why, I've a good mind to-"

Now she, too, is on her feet. "Oh, you have a 'good' mind, do you? You could have fooled me! What sort of mind is it that presupposes a universality to the qualities and conditions of its own experience? You have a good deal to learn abo-"

"A 'GOOD' deal?!?" he thunders. "This was a mistake, I can see that now. This whole endeavour was folly from the outset. I'm going home."

"Good!" she responds, causing him to smash a vase on his way out.

[Anonymous No.5692045]

>>5691995
I'd watch that sketch.

[Anonymous No.5692060]

>>5688309
You think that you know anything about philosophy and actually believe that.

[Anonymous No.5692309]

>>5687709
Can anyone explain what conclusion is being made of this?

[Anonymous No.5692317]

>>5692309
He's trying to reconstruct the first 100 years of philosophy through reading the blurbs of wikipedia articles. A noble task in deed.

[Anonymous No.5692328]

>>5692317
I understood the text but I'm not well versed in philosophy. Is a conclusion being made or is it simply a rambling of ideas?

[Anonymous No.5692353]

>>5692328
Rambling mostly.
He unkowingly starts with the sophist idea that perception is entirely subjective and takes Plato's quite basic attempt to unify the concept under the flag of most people having a general understanding and the implication of an absolute one, something the neo-platonics did changing "lol ideas" with "lol divinity".

He tried to put a modern anthropological aproach as Jung did but he failed to even present the most basic support to the collective unconscious, which is a concept that has been expanded both in continental philosophy and analytic philosophy (in a sense at least, through the idea of basic construction paths in our brains).

[Anonymous No.5693789]

>>5692353
You're such an asshole, dude.

[Anonymous No.5693882]

>>5693789
who are u

[Anonymous No.5693888]

>>5687290
i say something is good or bad in conversation because i don't have asperger's syndrome, but if i am writing an actual criticism of something i will go into detail as to why i think so.

[Anonymous No.5693917]

>>5693888
you dont say something like that because you are a coward and no one respects you so they wont even acknowledge you or your opinion. You are a loser... man... sorry

[Anonymous No.5694050]

>>5687290
>Criticism is irrelevant because it all comes down to personal tastes
this isn't exactly true, given that criticism is heavily reliant on backing up your ideas with evidence and a logical progression of ideas

>There is no bad literature, there are no bad movies, there is no bad music
The issue with this is more to do with how we define 'good' and 'bad', than it is to finding an objective measure for quality; if we can come to a concrete meaning for the difference between a 'good' and 'bad' piece of art - be it influence, popularity, critical response or something else entirely - then an objective canon would present itself.

[Anonymous No.5694062]

>>5694050
>then an objective canon would present itself.

I would argue it would only be intersubjective.

[Anonymous No.5694100]

>>5694062
Personally I think intersubjectivity is as close as we can get to true objectivity. I don't think it's necessary to look anywhere beyond the human experience to be able to formulate an objective hirachy of quality, as literature is inherently a man-made concept, even if it originates in divine inspiration

[Anonymous No.5694104]

>>5694100

Sure, closest we can get.

[Anonymous No.5694492]

When my friends talk about movies, TV shows or music they always compare things and use words such as "good" or "bad".

They always ask me "is X better than Y?" and similar.

How am I supposed not to be like them too then.

[Anonymous No.5694547]

>>5693789
I do what I can.
Try to remember that "asshole" is a subjective term that should be accompanied with the criteria you used to define that work in the current context.
;^)

>>5694492
You can comment on the elements you enjoyed from each and how they relate, even use certain scenes as examples of how they interact.
You can also say "you'll like it more if you like X things".

[Anonymous No.5694549]

your mom wasn't so subjective yesterday

[Anonymous No.5694594]

>>5694549
read
>>5691995

[Anonymous No.5694681]

Art is "good" if the points which are meant to reflect reality do so accurately. Even then, some bad art can still be good as a psychological piece, acting as an abstract model of the effects of certain delusions.

[Anonymous No.5694866]

In the end you're always saying that something is better or worse than something else, the arguments that you make are the only difference.

For example, on this topic: if you only say that something is better than another thing, then the "everything is subjective" is a stronger argument. But if you explain why it is better, then that will be the stronger argument.

In my post I'm giving arguments about why things can be better than other things, and you can make weaker and stronger arguments arguing with me, and so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.5694968]

>>5691995
10/10

[Anonymous No.5696635]

>>5687290
Nothing is subjective.

[Anonymous No.5697665]

>>5696635

Whither discord?

[Anonymous No.5698203]

>>5696635
A sandwich is better than nothing
and nothing is better than heaven
does that mean a sandwich is better than heaven?

[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Bagel !GSvnHfPd/2 No.5698233]

>Criticism is irrelevant because it all comes down to personal tastes.
What about constructive criticism? Should we just tell everyone that everything they do is perfect the way it and can't be improved, anyway, since quality doesn't exist outside of your own perception?
>Why bother learning anything in schools when it's up to you to decide what matters and what doesn't?
Because social order is worth maintaining. Some things are closer to being objectively important than other things, but objective importance is asymptotic.
>What is relevant and what is irrelevant, it's all up to you
And it's also up to every other entity like yourself, i.e., every other thinking thing is also deciding what's most important. You should probably try to figure that out with your fellow thinking things. Otherwise, unresolvable conflicts will go unresolved when they could have not emerged at all, if only you had asked for a second opinion about an ethical matter.
>Why bother discussing things with other people when everything is subjective?
Because you have to involve other people in your actions at some point, and not discussing important actions with people who may be better informed about the facts of particular situations may lead you to make bad choices in those situations.

[Anonymous No.5699885]

>>5698233
This guy rekt you all.