How do you react to people who justify their shitty taste in literature with "it's subjective"?
Fuck off /mu/
Fuck off /mu/
>stop liking what I don't like
"well I only read what a bunch of neckbeard on a image board said I should read."
Objective/subjective is a spook OP. Stop browsing /mu/ so much.
I don't speak to sophomoric relativists.
ask if they think human rights are universal
if they say yes, they admit that things outside of physical reality can be objective
>>7487680
No they don't you imbecile
>>7487686
Yes they do, you cuck.
>>7487690
But they don't, you twit.
>>7487690
They can be applied universally, that does not mean they exist outside of thought; you bumbaclot.
I think the best way is to get them to admit that morality is objective. How to do that? Read David Enoch's article "Why I am objectivist about ethics (and why you are, too)". Its a simple start with simple but reasonably effective arguments. After they admit that morality has objective roots, establish that morality is a way of judging or valuing things, actions, people. Now you are just a few arguments away from applying the same to art, thoughts or whatever, really. Maybe this is not 100% bulletproof but it will work on most people (who would be open minded enough not to tell you to fuck off after two minutes).
I can't, I've tried many times but I still suck at it
Part of the reason is because I don't really think there's such thing as "objective" quality either, but I can't really articulate the distinction
>>7487388
Say '...and?'
You're a pleb OP
>>7487680
This better be the dumbest post ITT.
>>7487730
>morality
>objective
>>7487680
>>7487388
I say 'that's what I always say when people complain about my child pornography'.
>>7487730
If they're not idiots they go full Protagoras though.
>>7487841
who gives a fuck about these mysterious 'contemporary philosophers'
>>7487388
unfortunately they are correct
there is LITERALLY no way to argue the opposite
>>7487841
They also tend to be liberals, does that make liberalism correct?
>>7487878
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse
>>7487878
Philosophers
>>7487895
who gives a fuck about these mysterious 'contemporary philosophers'
>>7487905
who the fuck cares about these philosophers
One thing I've never been able to figure out is why anyone cares. Is
>Ulysses is superior to The Hunger Games because of this set of objective criteria (on which no-one can agree)
more convincing than
>Ulysses is superior to The Hunger Games because I like it better for [reasons]
?
People ITT have drawn the analogy to moral objectivism. You'd think moral objectivists never disagreed or something.
>>7487926
Because the latter isn't presented in a way that implies superiority, and superiority is very important to elitists.
>>7487926
it's literally because the first way of saying it is more meme
>>7487388
I usually say "Of course it's subjective, but here is reason XYZ for why that book is shit".
>>7487895
>Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%)
so philosophers literally do not grasp undergrad physics, yet also try to claim they are aware of objective universal truths?
>>7488032
Significant majority are compatibilists iirc.
>>7488032
No.
>>7487926
Taste is subjective but it isn't incorrect to say
>Ulysses has a more complex use of language and superior references to the Hunger Games.
>>7488072
Which doesn't make it better necessarily, those could be seen (and are seen) as cons for a lot of people.
Really, it doesn't matter which is "better", you should just read what you genuinely enjoy, not to impress others or be part of some elitism circlejerk.
>>7488060
compatibilism seems pretty airtight to be honest
>>7488060
Compatibilism cedes determinism, negating the physics angle (unless you want to make a case). The argument thus becomes about defining and seating 'moral responsibility', rather outside the purview of physics.
Isn't it true that some objectivity exists in art?
Isn't Tchaikovsky objectively better than me slamming my fist on the piano? Isn't Van Gogh objectively better than a childs scribbles?
Don't know how to expand the idea, though.
>>7487388
I don't, I don't give a shit what other people like.
>>7488100
its obviously true but trying to prove it is quite hard
>>7488100
Depends on what you think they're better at. You have to name strict parameters to say something is objectively better, like "The Mona Lisa is more detailed than a stick man figure" is an objective statement.
>>7488083
That's true but we on /lit/ actually like it though. Those things are why it can be considered objectively better. Ulysses is possibly the height of the English language so it makes sense that people enjoy it.
>>7488111
"eine kleine nachtmusic is better than randomly hitting notes" should also be an objective statement
>>7488100
if a child listened to tchaikovsky and someone banging their fist on a piano they might say that the fist is better. Their reasons might not make sense to you but to that child the fist is simply much better. Just because you don't agree with their reasoning doesn't mean they don't think it, or couldn't possibly be telling thr truth. But just the same when that child grows up they might think the opposite. Whether we like to admit it or not art is subjective, it's just that there is a general agreement over which side of the good-bad equilibrium most people would consider good.
But really who cares? Enjoy what you like and let others enjoy what they like. As long as it isn't hurting anyone what's the problem?
>>7488126
>"eine kleine nachtmusic is better than randomly hitting notes" should also be an objective statement
Well it is an objective statement. You want to say it should be objectively true. /pedantry
But that actually gets troublesome. It's not inconceivable that randomly hitting notes might produce something better than EKN, it's just massively unlikely a la monkeys and Shakespeare.
>>7488126
Not necessarily. What if you randomly hit a pretty neat, but simple tune, that resonates more with the person at hand? Not an unlikely scenario.
"eine kleine nachtmusik is harder to execute than randomly hitting notes" would be an objective statement.
>>7488135
>"eine kleine nachtmusik is harder to execute than randomly hitting notes" would be an objective statement.
not him but that's only objective if you're a human, a machine could play both equally well
Enjoyment is wholly subjective.
Quality is somewhat objective.
On these grounds are the basis of human experience of art. If everything was seperated into bins that say "OBJECKTIVLY GOOD/OBJECKTIVLY BAD" I don't think anybody would genuinely derive their own experience from art, therefore rendering it a moot point.
>>7487841
Then it turns out that most contemporary philosophers are self-righteous narcissists who have confused their own "subjective" morals as unrelenting facts! Unrelenting facts which all objectivity bases on. Who could've known? Just because the majority does or believes something, doesn't mean it is correct you fucking idiot!
>>7487730
What then of non cognitivists?
>There is people here who actually think you can determine something as better than something else and still be objective
>>7488265
There are*! sorry about that...
>>7488265
jack runs 1 mile in 6 minutes
jill runs 1 mile in 8 minutes
Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill.
>>7488316
>implying logic isn't subjective
>>7488234
gr8 b8 m8
>>7488316
>on that occasion, jack performed objectively better than jill at running the mile quickly
Humility, humility. The forgotten virtue.
>>7488316
>implying running the mile in a short time is what matters
>>7488333
forgive me, all was done in the name of efficiency
>>7488339
It's what matters in a race.
>>7487388
It is subjective, but is it that hard to be honest as well?
I like trashy books because they're fun and easy to read. I also like the occasional serious book, but probably not as much. I am a pleb, and I am okay with this.
I do judge people who like and enjoy GoT incredibly harshly, though. Sorry. I just think he's shit.
>>7488316
time and motion don't exist. reality is a changeless blob of one substance
>>7488379
What an idiotic image. A spout of meaninglessness. Vague platitudes. Disgusting; leave this board at once. You are a nonentity.
>>7488332
how is this bait?
>>7488366
nuh uh
>>7488379
>i am another master carpenter, this guy is known to subscribe to reams of absolute bullshit and is almost certainly wrong
>no, you're wrong, because [woodwork]
>no YOU'RE wrong, because [woodwork]
Nobody ever seems to realise that this is where it always ends up. Literally doesn't matter, and I'm already grading that on the curve of 'philosophical issues'.
>>7487879
Read Distinction by Bourdieu if you are interested in changing your view.
>>7488316
This isn't unrelenting fact since the race is only during one single occasion, it is situational, meaning that in another situation, the result could be the opposite and therefore crushing the statement that "Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill."
>>7488451
True, except that Jill will never beat Jack.
>Jack is objectively better than Jill at running the mile for time
is, for all practical purposes, correct.
>>7487388
>justify
Claiming the relativity of taste doesn't mean that your opinion is somehow untouchable because of it. Bad taste isn't produced so much by what you read, as it is how you approach reading in general. If you're unable to explain thoughtfully and comprehensively about the book and what makes it so good, you don't understand it well enough to comment on its value, simple.
>>7488481
>True, except that Jill will never beat Jack.
Well if you're stipulating that, fine. But you need to stipulate it.
>>7488351
What there is to appreciate about literature is a tad more complex and subjective than a race, boyo.
>>7488451
Meaning that if the statement cannot be applicable to every situation without falling apart on itself, making it false and therefore not a fact and therefore not objectively.
A true statement would be, "On that occasion, Jack ran the mile faster than Jill."
>>7488486
are you in physics? outside of autistic stemfields people don't consider it necessary to outline every constant factor in a situation. We take it for granted that people know about things like gravity, and friction, and that girls suck at running.
>>7488502
>are you in physics?
No.
>outside of autistic stemfields people don't consider it necessary to outline every constant factor in a situation.
The fact that this is wrong is why eg Gettier cases exist and are taken seriously.
>>7488445
thank you, it sounds right up my street. Will begin it tonight.
>>7488481
see >>7488500
>except that Jill will never beat Jack.
how in any way can you possibly know this for a fact? It is impossible!
I get that saying he is better at running is for practical purposes, but it doesn't mean it is objective fact. Because the statement can't be applicable for everything.
>>7488492
Obviously, faggot. I used the race as an example in which objectivity is inescapably obvious. The other faggot was saying nothing can measured at all, which is incredibly ass-headed. Regardless of the complexity of literature, the principle holds. Objectivity comes with measure. Measure requires an object of measure. The reason people sperg out about the superiority of this author over that author is because their objects of measure are initially concealed and often different person to person. Whether your criteria is "most worldbuilding" "verisimilitude" "wordcount" or "fellates my ideology most skillfully" or even some crazy equation that weights each value in some fashion.
Objectivity is easy. People are just dumb.
>>7488532
Jill and Jack are imaginary characters, friendo. We can know this for a fact because we can imagine them that way.
>>7488532
>how in any way can you possibly know this for a fact? It is impossible!
have you ever been outside?
if you have you should know that girls suck at running.
>>7488539
>Objectivity is easy.
False.
>People are just dumb.
Only thing your post proved.
>>7488540
So....? What does that prove?
If we can imagine them that way, we sure as hell can imagine them the other way as well!
>>7488557
'k, so Jill is the female world champion mile-runner and "Jack" is simply the name that you happen to run under. Jill had a sprained calf muscle before the race, which is why she took 8 minutes.
Is Jack objectively better than Jill at running the mile quickly?
>>7488573
Look, everyone. A female.
>>7488557
Will a guy always run faster than a girl in every situation possible?
No! Therefore proving my point.
You can disregard some things when being practical, but you can't do that when being objective.
>>7488581
We can pretend I am if it helps you.
Feel like answering the question?
>>7488563
I don't even know what you are trying to show. In fact, you have some weird definition of "objective" that nobody seems to be trying to defend here.
>>7488589
Haha, ew look at it.
>>7488587
nobody said i was trying to capture every situation possible. you're moving goalposts. My statement is objectively correct for all situations in which it is objectively correct, as I meant it to be. I only wanted to prove that objectivity is possible, which I feel that I have, so now I'm amusing myself by womanhate trolling. Never tried to write something that holds true in every situation, which is 1, easy, and 2, not what objectivity is, u fokkin retard
>>7488600
>>7488611
Objective definition:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
>based on facts
Facts definition:
something that actually exists; reality; truth
>truth
The original statement:
Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill
See >>7488573
This post makes the original statement false, therefore making it not true, therefore making it not a fact and finally making it not objective!
>>7488643
Your fanfiction of my post is non-canon and doesn't make it false, and to be honest, /lit/ isn't the place for fanfic and if you don't want to be banned I suggest you delete your posts itt
>>7487399
this tbqh imo senpai wew lad
>>7488643
do you think it is impossible to compare any two things objectively?
>>7487730
>Read David Enoch's article "Why I am objectivist about ethics (and why you are, too)"
>Uses a joke and "how it feels like when discussing morality" to prove its objectivity
srsly
>>7488664
what do you mean?
>>7488653
fanfiction?
If you are referring to >>7488573
that wasn't me
Also how was that non-canon?
Your original idea or statement (completely untainted, pic related) was applied to a situation and it didn't work, therefore it was proven to be false
>>7488573
"But some races have racers that aren't even named Jack OR Jill so ur wrong!"
do you see why you're dumb, or would you like it explained further?
>>7488701
A statement needn't hold true in every possible configuration of atoms in order for it to be "objectively true"
"Jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true in all situations where "Jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true, therefore "jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true.
>>7488703
Explained further, please. Warning: all the sentences necessary to make you look even dumber than you presumably think I am are already ITT.
>>7488573
>Is Jack objectively better than Jill at running the mile quickly?
For that particular period of time, yes.
>>7488719
>a tautology is tautological, therefore it is in fact the case
Pink unicorns are pink, therefore pink unicorns exist.
You may legitimately be too retarded to understand how retarded you are. It's not clear at the minute, but that's the trend.
>>7488728
But this simply rephrases the statement "Jack won the race".
>>7488388
okay, nabokov.
>>7488753
And? He won the race precisely because he objectively was a better runner for the duration of the event.
>>7488712
You are putting a modal spin on a definition of objective that makes no references to worlds. All you showed is that there is a possible world where the original statement is false. That doesn't make it subjective. The question of whether the Earth revolves around the sun is not a matter of opinion just because I can imagine it both ways.
>>7488809
>And? He won the race precisely because he objectively was a better runner for the duration of the event.
Mmhmm, nobody's said otherwise. At least one hardcore moron couldn't seem to grasp that the conclusion:
>Jack is objectively better than Jill at running the mile quickly
...doesn't follow. All he had to do was not keep screaming that it did. No biggie.
>>7488127
If I admit that art is subjective than I can't think that I'm better than others because of my taste
who cares? people like what they like, there's no point in trying to convince people they should like things differently.
>>7488712
Why shouldn't a statement hold true in every possible situation in order for it to be "objectively true"?
Objective definition:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
>based on facts
Your statement is not a fact if it cannot be applied to every situation and still be true.
Your logic is just focused on one single thing and not the bigger picture.
>>7488712
>"Jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true in all situations where "Jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true, therefore "jack is better at running the mile for time than Jill" is objectively true.
but your statement was just "Jack is OBJECTIVELY better at running the mile quickly than jill." and did not mention that it was just in those situations where he runs faster than her. You just said objectively, implying that it was universally an objective truth, therefore it must be applicable to every situation
>>7488733
Thanks for making me smile family
>>7488829
Reading comprehension buddy
>>7488857
>Reading comprehension buddy
No, compositional skill, frienderino. Seems you're just bad enough at expressing yourself to trip up over trivialities. Weird board for you to wash up on, really. How'd that happenif you can manage to explain without accidentally typing the phonebook?
>>7488855
>but in outer space there aren't even any people racing, so ur statement is wrong!
This is what you sound like
>>7488855
>>>7488712
>Why shouldn't a statement hold true in every possible situation in order for it to be "objectively true"?
>Objective definition:
>not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
>>based on facts
>Your statement is not a fact if it cannot be applied to every situation and still be true.
That's not what facts are you colossal idiot.
>>7488870
All I am doing is that I acknowledge contratidctions, and my logic for that is not so hard to follow because I haven't really jumped to saying:
>but in outer space there aren't even any people racing, so ur statement is wrong!
I have literally used the definition of the word objective. Plz prove me wrong in my latest post instead saying what i sound like m8.
>>7488909
If you say "Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill." and not "Jack was objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill."
Then my reasoning for what a fact is is airtight.
>>7488921
You made up a fake definition of fact, as "must be true of all possible configurations of atoms" which is patently absurd.
I am posting on 4chan. This is fact, yet not all configurations of atoms contain 4chan nor myself, let alone myself posting on 4chan.
The statement is true within only a small slice of reality, but within that slice its truth is objective.
>>7488941
jack runs 1 mile in 6 minutes
jill runs 1 mile in 8 minutes
This are the facts = information
Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill.
This is a conclusion that was drawn from the facts, hence this is not a fact!
Prove me wrong
>>7488935
>>>7488909 (You)
>If you say "Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill." and not "Jack was objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill."
Still fails your criteria because there are possible configurations of atoms where jack is, say, struck by a meteor and "loses" the race.
Your definition of facts is an absurd contrarian construction that reveals that your only intention here is to combat my words in order to better gain the esteem of anonymous posters on a Lebanese bean farming forum, whereas I speak from the heart to share my experience with anons seeking clarity.
>>7488996
My definition of facts derive from that a statement like "Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill.", cannot be considered as a fact unless it can be applicable to everything.
>Still fails your criteria because there are possible configurations of atoms where jack is, say, struck by a meteor and "loses" the race
How does this fail my criteria? My criteria is that the statement "Jack is objectively better at running the mile quickly than jill." is bullshit
>>7489035
Because of the "is" in the statement, it implies that it is that way, in every situation.
If it was "was" instead, it would refer to a situation and imply that it was that way in that situation.
The use of present tense instead of past tense in a statement is the reason for why the definition of a fact looks the way I've written it.
Are you to bigoted to see that?
