Convince me that literary taste is objective without using your own personal taste. I'll wait.
Intertextuality.
Why would I want to do that, Mr. Halen?
my dick is hard, they call me the bard
>>7657056
>objective
You should know that using this word in the way you are using it shows what a pleb you are. Please go back to watching anime, it's more suited to your malfunctioning faculties.
>>7657056
JEKYLL JEKYLL HYDE
JEKYLL HYDE
HYDE JEKYLL
The ideal Platonic form of a good book exists in a non-physical, non-mental plane.
We call those books "objectively good" that more closely conform to this ideal Form.
Q.E.D.
>>7657056
>literary taste
Of course taste isn't going to be "objective" you dummy. This doesn't mean that there aren't any real aesthetic values though.
>>7657872
This. Taste isn't objective, but quality is.
>>7657099
Ten to one you can't actually DESCRIBE the alleged Form, though.
>>7657056
no
>>7657056
Having fun isn't hard when you've got a library card
>>7658055
In all honesty, even quality is objective: diamond's worth, the worth of gold, "fine" wines, etc. It's just a value that is collectively agreed upon, or sometimes decided by the market.
>>7657072
Why would you choose to use the word in its archaic form?
What word do you use for the modern day "objective" then, in place of it?
On another note, how exactly did we get from objective/subjective meaning of relation to the object/subject to objective/subjective meaning fact/opinion anyway?
Was it after Kant? I think that's the latest in history I saw it used in the old fashion.
>>7658480
Insofar as objective is no longer objective. Get a fucking dictionary.
>>7657056
Convince me that reality is objective without using your personal tastes cuck
>>7657057
This. Read 'Tradition and the Individual Talent.'
>>7659437
I don't think you understand what that word means.
