Someone walks up to you and says that art is inherently subjective and you can't objectively prove that something like...

Someone walks up to you and says that art is inherently subjective and you can't objectively prove that something like Moby Dick is a superior piece of art to Green Eggs and Ham.

What do?

i like green eggs more than moby dick so i dont give a fuck and just walk off

They're right you can't OBJECTIVELY prove much at all, especially things based subjectively on people's opinions.

You can poll a large group of knowledgeable people and get a good idea. This is generally what happens. If I draw a turd, I can subjectively say it's a better piece of art than a Picasso, but not everyone will agree.

jack off and cum on his face

Moby-Dick vs Green Eggs and Ham is a bad comparison because they're different types of books with different intended audiences and both are written by very good authors.

I'll tell him he doesn't know what 'inherently' and 'subjective' mean.

kick his ass and say his pain is only subjective

Say he's right that you can't prove it objectively, but through superior argumentation.

>inherently subjective
Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.

"Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity!

GE&H is a better children's book than Moby Dick is literature. Possibly the most overrated novel of all time.

Naturally, you can't prove that certain books are superior to other books like you can prove that 1+2=3; you will never have this degree of accuracy.

The first problem is purpose. What is it that an art piece ought to do? If person X claims it's solely entertainment, you'll be hard pressed to claim Moby Dick is objectively more entertaining than Harry Potter (just think of the normies whining about cetology). If in scientism fashion, someone uses a brain scan device to analyse the brain of two readers, one reading Moby Dick and that likes Moby Dick and another reading Hunger Games and that likes Hunger Games and then notices the brain waves or whatever are the same, it will be difficult for you again. However, if you set a general purpose to human life or reading, it becomes easier.

If I claim that it is better to be a good man than a bad one (very reasonable) and that reading classics helps you become a good man while reading YA makes you a mediocre man (easy to demonstrate), I have justified Moby Dick being better than Harry Potter. Ultimately, the results are on your side. Reading classics, philosophy, history, sociology and so on (and reading them properly) WILL give you a better understanding of the world and WILL take you out of your intellectual mediocrity. The same cannot be said for YA.

I remember some guy in HS that only read fantasy books and kept shitting on me for reading classics, saying they were dumb or boring or whatever. He probably said those things out of insecurity or something. Well today, to my knowledge, he's still the same as ever, and in the meanwhile I've learned all kinds of things.

The correct emotion to feel for these people is pity, because they will never be able to take flight and ascend. It doesn't matter if they claim to be happy or not, because their happiness is necessarily artificial. As Bloom said, reading the classics makes you more interesting to yourself and to others. Reading YA all day will ultimately generate a hollow individual, much like eating Mcdonald all day will turn you into a butter golem.

I believe that one of the books which has been written is objectively the best. I believe in an objective metric that we as humans don't have access to. So we can judge books based on various metrics and determine which are probably close to being objectively the best but not which is the best for sure. I believe this primarily because the alternative is a dead end. As humans we are seeking truth and to say that everything is subjective denies thst truth exists. Conversations with people who think like this boil down to 'I like it' or 'I dont.' It's highly reductionist.

There's a type of basic person who can't distinguish between things they like and things other people might like. Consider a juggalo convinced of ICPs superiority. He lacks sufficient self awareness to identify why he likes ICP and why others may not. The idea that everything is subjective justifies his limited mindset.

Seeking the objective truth is what humans are here to do. I believe there is an objective truth even though I know no one will ever access it.

I know the truth but it's a trade secret, so...

Yeah don't tell him.

You accept that everything is subjective but put forth that some men are greater than others. How do you reconcile the idea that a greater man will have a more objective opinion with the fact that his greatness is only assured in your own perception of him?

Rude.

Walk away

>Le mind versus reality dichotomy

Common sense fags deserve to die

I guess that fucker would be right.
>not having you cum already in a syringe for quick spraying

Green Eggs and Ham is great tho

1) Read Harold Bloom's 'The Western Canon'

2) Grasp his basic argument with respect to the aesthetic (namely that the aesthetic and agonistic are one, that 'Canon' works are born out of the agon, etc)

3) Walk all over them

tell me more

While you were reading that book he has already convinced 500 people to his side with his simple argumentation.

Agree and ask what his point is.

speaking to someone like this is a waste of time

How did they arrive at that conclusion? Are they themselves an artist? Or is that just an excuse for mediocrity?

You can't say it is objectively superior by deploying some piece of evidential certainty, or unfolding a compelling chain of deductive reasoning; all you can say is that Moby Dick is more meaningful.

Shrug my shoulders and walk away because it probably isn't worth my time to discuss it with someone intent on being right, which would likely be the case if someone were to just walk right up to me and tell me that flat out.

Why would you bother?

Is the Anxiety of Influence a Nietzschean theory?

Idealist fag

Tell him he is right, they are just words in a paper.

Everything post-Nietzsche that isn't analytic (and in some cases, too) is Nietzschean.

Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

You mean the alphas are the ones that misunderstood the ones spouting reduccionist and narrows points of view about humanity and his expericences in order to commit and justify the greats crimes against said humanity?

>ESOL

this.

I really like this picture. Who's the artist, user?

^ This.
A waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't know the definitions of objective vs subjective.

Just as its a waste of time trying to talk to a religious person.

my new background. thanks

What the fuck, there aren't any eggs that are green, eggs just aren't green.
Don't you mean ", literaturely"?

>The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective
But you judge the greatness of men based on your own opinion of them. So going by your theory, if you like someone, their perspective is "better" than that of someone that you don't like.

Veeky Forums once again shows how little they actually know about the principles and history of literature, or for that matter culture. it's like you're all just a bunch of kids or something. people have been objectively evaluating art, and trying to do away with an objective measure of art, since the greeks.

/film/ here

this t b h f a m

Not an argument.

This, p much. I'm a singing monkey, who gives a shit what mute rocks say if it's not relevant to me in any way? "Objectivity" is nothing but a supposedly third party proof of some reality on which me and the other guy are obligated to agree on; it's ridiculous from the get go because all data we can ever get is defined by our particular conditions; as such the other guy is only bringing it up because it serves his own purposes, and, as he's not saying anything about either work, or what art is, or subjectivity, hell the brute isn't even trying to hide his intention through a web of argument... he can go fuck himself.

Shallow words deserve direct answers.