It's surprising how common the response of "it's just subjective!" gets thrown about whenever the topics of aesthetics, g(eneral intelligence) factor, or (even) ethics are discussed.
Those using this response seem to latch onto the notion that if a variable is too complex or too dynamic to be measured, then for all intents and purposes it either doesn't exist at all or that it produces the same effects no matter what values it contains.
When in reality the values at play in those topics were, and are, precisely the most decisive factors in our species' recent history.
All the things you've mentioned are either subjective or impossible to grasp and formalize by human beings. Probably your notion of not being subjective is to say subjective shit while pretending that it's all objective and rooted in ""reason""
Eli Richardson
they're not too complex or too dynamic, they're constructs we created that have no relation to the 'objective'. Why would it be surprising that people would point out to you that something which is the product of the way subjects relate to objects like aesthetics is subjective
Oliver Foster
Argument based on subjectivity is just philosophical laziness. Might as well go full sophist and claim nothing exists u can't prove me wrong.
Brody Myers
I don't even understand why saying "it's subjective" ends a discussion. If it is, who cares? It is still MY subjective perception and thus it's how I react to it. When talking about a book, or any piece of art I WANT to get people's subjective thoughts on it. Trying to be objective is boring; usually the "objective" opinion is often just the dominant subjective one.
Dominic Bell
>being honest is philosophical laziness Eh.
John Gutierrez
Here's your problem: you seem to be a well adjusted individual. You want to give your opinion and listen to other people's opinions, and at every moment you recognize these as such: opinions. The "it's subjective" usually trump another kind of argument: the one in which one tries to prove an objective with his own opinion, elevating it at universal truth. Basically people who want to say X is objectively better than Y while thinking they are absolutely, uncontroversially right.
Carter Cook
Your position presupposes being, "honesty", being, philosophy (it doesn't exist), and laziness.
Can't know nothing nuffin exist bitch boy.
David Thompson
I meant that going >full sophist and claim nothing exists u can't prove me wrong Is the most honest stance a philosopher can take.
Luke Sanders
>ethics and aesthetics are subjective Actually defending their subjectivity is as hard as defending their objectivity. Prove they are subjective. Tip: claiming there is no good arguments for their objectivity does not prove your point.
Carter Roberts
Guys let's not get sidetracked by bickering about basic epistemology, start another thread for that if you want to argue over that.
I also propose a thread ban (as in, to ignore) on anyone who still uses the terms "subjective" or "objective" ITT since the OP was content to discuss aesthetics/ethics/intelligence as being products of the human mind rather than material objects of our world. So basically we aren't talking about subjectivity or objectivity (which are defined against each other), we are talking about value-judgements of the human mind and ascertaining what they might be *RELATIVE* to, e.g. evolutionary factors.
This is an example of the "objectivity" strawman the proponents will openly attack. e.g. nothing I wrote in the OP mentioned objectivity, I was EXPLICITLY talking about value judgements, which are a product of the mind.
>usually the "objective" opinion is often just the dominant subjective one. You have this nearly correct despite your decadent attitude towards domination. -Of course- the closest thing to objectivity (to use the straw man concept that you degenerates have to keep bringing up) in the realm of value judgements (which by definition aren't physical *objects* in the world) would be those values which are dominant.
The dominant values in ethics, aesthetics, and intelligence are precisely those values that were most valued in order to ensure the survival of our species and the flourishing of our civilisations. And I suspect those who try to diminish those values with the "subjectivity" response are those who feel some kind of resentment towards them (e.g. the unintelligent towards g factor, the ugly and tastless towards aesthetics, the impotent and unfortunate towards life being "unfair" or "unequal", etc).
Robert Hill
Subject comes from the Latin 'subicere', to throw under; and 'subjectus', brought under. Object from the Latin 'obicere', to throw in the way of. The appended '-ive' to the perfect passive participle of 'object' and 'subject' forms an adjective of the action.
Phenomenologically, all of my experiences have been subjective - my 'I' is inescapably above each experience. It seems then, that the objective, as an idea, comes from a supposition of "throw-ness" as ancillary, and so, not necessary, for experience.
Dominic Clark
aesthetics is a product of our perceptions, anything we perceive is automatically subjective, things which we collectively perceive together are merely intersubjective. For example when we look at the colour of something (leaving aside the debate about whether this is intersubjective or not), it is fundamentally the product of the colour cones in our eyes. If you were a mantis shrimp the way in which you perceive colour would appear wildly different however both ways in which the colour is interpreted are technically 'correct' but we can never know what something 'objecitvely' looks like. i don't even see what the point of the op is desu, 'wow like even though things are subjective that doesn't mean they're not important'. is this the modern socrates?
Nicholas Richardson
>i don't even see what the point of the op is desu, 'wow like even though things are subjective that doesn't mean they're not important'. is this the modern socrates?
That's pretty much my impression. OP if you seriously wasn't to establish some basis for aesthetics, I'd be happy to help you, but I don't believe that this will actually be possible without deep knowledge of the structure of the human mind and why this may allow us to experience things and their relations the way we do.
If you wanted to understand 'pure' aesthetics; effectively judging the phenomena of the experience itself, then you'll run into problems conveying the specifics of your experience to others and trying to understand exactly what you share in common and how you differ.
Brayden Bailey
Although the etymology might not be completely indicative of current usage I still find your post to be the most valuable response so far. Would you say that my usage here >i don't even see what the point of the op is desu, 'wow like even though things are subjective that doesn't mean they're not important' You do realise that the whole point of the "it's subjective" response is to take, e.g., a conversation about aesthetics and run it through the smokescreen where it turns into a non-argument about epistemology (subjectivity/objectivity), something that no one cared to discuss in the first place?
I'll make it as clear as day with a silly dialogue example, that represents how this usually goes: >people discussing: 'yeah that is quite a bad and ugly piece of writing' >a fan responds: 'you can't say that is objectively bad, it's subjective and therefore as good as any other piece of writing' >the people: we didn't say it was objective. all we're saying is that, as healthy and discerning individuals, there is a consensus among us that this piece of writing is ugly.. the kind of thing we evolved to avoid ... your preference for it is similarly explainable, as ugly and decaying lifeforms necessarily enjoy ugliness and decay... now if you want to (if you can even coherently do so) defend this writing in the same terms we were criticising it, to show us that there is some beauty to be found, then go ahead and do that instead of shifting to a more general topic about subjectivity that none of us ever cared for >the fan: [.pauses to consider whether they can articulate the writing's beauty.] ... So what you're saying is that you think it's OBJECTIVELY BAD??
Benjamin King
Using the words "objective" or "subjective" in an argument shows how few one is aware of one's own intellectual heritage, and how one is still thinking in the past.
Jeremiah Cook
>shows how few one is aware Forgive me for living in the past, but how does this new grammar operate?
>Using the words "objective" or "subjective" in an argument shows how few one is aware of one's own intellectual heritage, and how one is still thinking in the past. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but in either case, as I mentioned here I explicitly avoided using those words in the OP because I consider that debate to be a smokescreen that people use to escape discussions or verdicts about aesthetics/ethics/intelligence that they dislike.
Nolan Parker
hmm i agree sometimes that is the case, however of course if you look at things under a specific set of criteria one thing is going to appear better than another. If i'm comparing the sweetness of fruits because i prefer sweetness than the red apple is better than the green because it's more sweet. From a different perspective in which you're comparing how sour fruits are to match your preference than the green apple beats the red apple
Leo Hill
essentially most things will inevitably come down to a matter of preference
Isaac Scott
>he doesnt realise that objective truth is articulated through social constructions
Logan Howard
I didn't comment on objective truth though, truth was never a topic of this thread. We're pointing out that it is nonsensical to think "subjective" things are completely random, unimportant, or relative to nothing (a nonsensical phrase).
Breaking News: value-judgements are 'just' preferences.
However, those preferences are relative to, or even 'determined' (if you can stomach that idea) by, genetic and environmental factors. To give an example, strength and health are probably aesthetically pleasing for most humans because that preference correlated with evolutionary successes. So you could say that a taste for the weak and sick is a deviant taste, or even 'wrong'. That's the closest thing (since they aren't physical objects outside the mind) we have to objectivity in the realm of value-judgements: how powerful a preference is. So you could even say the consensus of prestigious art critics is more 'objective' than that of some random fans of an artist. But to reiterate, the words "objective" and "subjective" are usually used to diminish the debate by people going against the most powerful and dominant preferences or consensus.
Jason Parker
If that is the case, doesnt it mean that the values (preferences) under we declare something good or beautiful are determined by our current needs?
In example, I may enjoy having a worn out basket even if someone is to tell me it is ugly and old. Under my judgemeny values, I appreciate the damage on it as proof of use and resistance, perhaps linked to a memory or simply because it looks more exotic somehow.
If this is the case, then there is no way that judgement values are subjective, but the opposite, and what is known as objective values are simply labels and criteria which enjoys popularity in our society.
Asher Murphy
>the kind of thing we evolved to avoid ... your preference for it is similarly explainable, as ugly and decaying lifeforms necessarily enjoy ugliness and decay...
Ok you're showing you're pseudness here. Would you care to justify this? We were naturally selected things like snakes and insects, not what you consider bad dialogue.
There have been many philosophical discussions of the nature of what you're talking about that try to elucidate the nature of how we perceive art and how this is similar or different between people and cultures. But what you're trying to do seems to be focused on allowing yourself to be more at ease as feeling superior to people who don't know enough to be able to strike back at you.
Jack Parker
There's no reason to believe that any concept eists outside of our perception. I have literally no reason to believe that objective aesthetics exists, and at the same time I have a fsir share of reasons to doubt my istinct and judgement. And even if there's a metsphysical plane on which the concepts of Ethics and Aesthetics exist, we have no access to that plane: if someone wants to be honest, he should technically say literally nothing about ethics and aesthetics, for all he would say it would be either a lie or a mere reference to his subjective experience, which can't prove objectivity.
Jace King
They're not necessarily subjective but the underlying mechanics are too complex to be grasped objectively.
Jaxson Bailey
you sure are a rude cunt for someone that wants to discuss something so basic. i get that you're angry that someone likes something you don't but your arguments really don't apply to art. if something so basic like taste in fruit is relative than something extremely complex, like what constitutes better art, is going to be almost impossible to qualify in that most art is simply incomparable. not to mention the fact that you shouldn't measure art on how pleasing to the eye it is, rather the intensity of the feeling it produces. Which as you say is subject to environmental factors; so for something like pic related, someone with a relatable experience is going to have a stronger opinion on the piece than someone without. ultimately leading to the idea that you can't accurately compare this piece to and say that one is better than the other
Joseph Davis
>my desires and experiences are objective sure thing
Luke Howard
We really need a context where the call of everything being subjective occurs and not general outline that of complexity or dynamics. Such a call can occur on all levels, but the tendency of human mind is to bring it up whenever there is detachment from immediate understanding to a more distant more knowledge and abstract thought. The objectiveness is never exact but always the level of persuasion of the thought. I don't like the word subjective in this regard as it confuses people to know that the reality is objective. Call of subjectiveness is more of a saying that the person isn't aware of the persuasive "oppressive" ideas that would point him whichever way or doesn't find much difference of persuasion between existing notions of how something is, often a result of lack of knowledge.
Xavier Butler
It's not that surprising. It's much easier for the ego to consider that it's just stupid and can't into a subject like math than it is for it to admit that its taste and very manner of being is underdeveloped and inferior to another's. People take their tastes to heart closer than their intellects.
The idea of perspectivism can also be easily abused by lazy people. Rather than using it to form a hierarchy of perspectives and a means of growing, it is more often used to say that every perspective is equal.
William Murphy
No. It's philosophical laziness equal to DUDE WEED LMAO.
Benjamin Watson
B-but I'm a solipsist
Samuel Gomez
You assume being and mind kiddo.
Aaron Young
Tell me more
Nolan Richardson
So, the question becomes a how and what of perspective hierarchy.
One might place their own perspective at the top, and judge all espoused points of perspectives relative to itself, placing those closest to their own perspective closer to the top.
Further, why do we need this hierarchy - beyond a blind desire for knowledge.
Christopher Price
>defend this writing in the same terms we were criticising it Fan should respond by say it's a good and beautiful piece of writing.
Nathaniel Bennett
>One might place their own perspective at the top Go ahead. You will find out if it really is at the top when you begin to measure it against others' perspectives and compete with them directly towards goals.
>Further, why do we need this hierarchy - beyond a blind desire for knowledge. To achieve goals. Desire for knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with it aside from assisting in reaching goals.
Joshua Myers
So, the true judgment comes from outcomes? How are we to know if a difference in outcome resulted from a difference in perspective; that there is a correlation between the two?
Desired outcomes are contingent on the perspective of the individual - can we then compare perspectives if they don't share the desired outcome?
Jose Murphy
>So, the true judgment comes from outcomes? From reality, which is why you must measure against and compare yourself to others (as opposed to thinking in your brain bubble safe space that is removed from reality). Whether you know what the reality is or not makes no difference, because the reality IS regardless, and time will keep moving without concern of you.
>How are we to know if a difference in outcome resulted from a difference in perspective; that there is a correlation between the two? Read philosophy and live your life fully to know better.
>can we then compare perspectives if they don't share the desired outcome? Goals are dependent on their perspectives and can also be measured against one another.
Justin Green
>Goals are dependent on their perspectives By "their" I mean the ones who have said goals. You measure goals by measuring the perspectives behind them.
Dominic Butler
The judgment against another is dependent on the individual perspective. My reality is my perspective - I might judge Achilles to be the greatest individual but this does not make it so.
>Goals are dependent on their perspectives and can also be measured against one another. >By "their" I mean the ones who have said goals. You measure goals by measuring the perspectives behind them. I fail to see what that measurement would look like. I can associate the goal of a perspective with that perspective but measurement requires a metric or system of metrics. Are you saying that we care about the goal itself or whether the goal is achieved?
Ian Bennett
>The judgment against another is dependent on the individual perspective. My reality is my perspective Sure. Your "reality" will also get obliterated when it comes in contact with a more powerful one. The more powerful one is the one that is truer.
>I fail to see what that measurement would look like. Man uses its power to put beasts of prey in zoos for our amusement. In that situation, whose reality is truest? Whichever one holds the greater power.
Jonathan Myers
Michel go to bed you died of AIDS over thirty years ago
But Nietzsche didn't believe in objective truth either.
Read Beyond Good and Evil.
Xavier Green
How, may I ask, are you supposed to measure aesthetics or taste in a factual way? These things are by their very nature a relative thing, which means you not only have to study the perspective but also the person or movement in which it resides.
This is why it's difficult to describe a piece of work accurately and why it's so easy to anger fanatics; when you use the word "bad" you are automatically describing it in an objective matter, and nobody in this world enjoys the idea of being bad.
OP, I believe you're just trying to justify your pompous and obnoxious behavior by trying to pass off your opinions as facts. Not one person I've ever discussed with has had the need to call for subjectiveness in order to shut me down, since it is always implied that our tastes are different and relative; and to think somebody had to remind you about this, let alone commonly enough for you to make a thread about it, is in my opinion proof that you are in the wrong in this case.
Subjective and Objective are not smokescreens in conversations, they are a reminder that when it comes to taste there is no definitive answer.
Charles Baker
Correct. He did away with the notion of the "objective" and thus also with the notion of the "subjective". The separation of the two as distinct opposites or areas is a miscalculation that leads to massive problems in thought, many of which he pointed out.
This is why Nietzsche writes in conclusions and parables, rarely explains himself, and avoids writing any direct claims of existence vs. non-existence or truth vs. falsehood. This is also why Christ spoke in the same manner and why Nietzsche called him one of the free spirits. It sounds mystic and obscure only to the uninitiated / the person who hasn't delved deeply into himself yet.
Gabriel Powell
>using rationality to refute irrationality This guy is just talking to himself. You can be a rationalist but you're no better than a creationist if you take that belief to be a metaphysical objective truth.
Christopher Johnson
bump
Liam Hall
t. brainlet
Asher Reyes
The study of Aesthetics is objective insofar as one takes a Platonic view of the Beautiful. However, even with this view in mind, how much of the realm of Aesthetics can transcend all (human) domains, in order to be considered objective is a small portion of the total domain of the Aesthetic. The largest portion will be "subject to" specific human domains - with the smallest possible human domain obviously being one person (which obviously also correlates to the highest level of subjectivity).
Not very much is definitively known about the variable "g" (out of what is theoretically knowable), and it is highly "subject to" varying professional opinions, metrics, and test domains.
About the same applies to the Ethical as does the Aesthetic. With both the Ethical and the Aesthetic being subdomains of The Good - and, quite possibly, the beautiful. However, what was said about the fluctuating, and highly variant, levels of subjectivity within the Aesthetic applies, possibly, even more to the Ethical.
Isaac Cox
Being against secondary text is one of the the most pleb things there is though. You're basically assuming they're all like Spark Notes.
Eli Morris
very irksome, imo
the subjective are those categories which structure perception, eg space and time. if art was "subjective" that would mean that art would be one of those categories which makes perception possible.
the subjective categories structure perception, and the world conforms to these categories. we call what is given to the subject, the object . we further distinguish what the subject experiences as the phenomenal, while what is beyond the subject's categories of perception as the noumenal, the world outside experience.
art, like all experience, is objective, given to the subject. now, the "objective" not only covers that which we ordinarily think of as external, like perception, but also that which we habitually consider as internal, like thoughts, memories, feelings, and so forth. the subjective cannot be thought directly but only understood conceptually through an analysis of the object.
now, we are similar subjects, ie our perceptions are similarly structured and run parallel to each other (hence inter-subjectivity) but owing to that we have lived different lives we have each been given and worked upon different objects. for that reason i'll agree that the experience of art is peculiar to the subject. note the difference.
now to the contentious part: i believe that art can be ranked in a loose way in that they as objects give differently ordered experiences of varied complexity, and which upon being worked involve the subject to different extents. "good" art involves the subject more deeply and allows, by being worked upon, the subject to develop new conceptual faculties, whereas "bad" art can be smoothly integrated into an already extant structure without being handled or worked upon in any significant way.
Daniel Allen
i also quite distinctly disagree with your position. that hippie called christ needed a boss like st. paul to make his ideas concrete. hegel is right in this regard, i think: this endless freedom correctly adduces the problems of systematised discourse and so uproots itself from such speech and establishes itself in a posture of radical resistance, but because of its total relativity is itself unable to establish or assert anything but its own freedom. what is needed is the dull and necessarily problematic work of systems. a fav quote by the big h
"Its uniformity is highly boring but it fits everything. You want the coat: here you can have it; also the vest: here, you strike one cheek; here is the other cheek too; you want the small finger: cut it off. I can kill everything, abstract from everything. Such obstinacy is indomitable and can in itself overcome everything. But the highest thing that could be overcome, that would be precisely this freedom, this death itself."
Gavin Taylor
secondary sources are for those who cannot understand the original/are too stupid to form their own thoughts regarding it.
Jayden Edwards
And this stance is for people who can't understand both the original and which secondary texts are valuable.
