Does popular mean good?

Fvlminatvs said:
Just because you think Sword Art Online is good or bad, and just because your opinion is subjective, does not mean that the actual, objective merits (or lack thereof) of Sword Art Online do or do not exist, or whether your assessment is true or false. The objective quality of Sword Art Online exists, regardless of any human being's incapacity to perceive it objectively.

Zelkiiro said:
Fortunately, as I am the Arbiter of Absolute Truth, I can shed some light onto these tricky matters.

*clears throat*

Fvlminatvs said:
Public service announcement:

Good is objective.

What we think is good is subjective.

Know the difference.

Examples: Being shot or stabbed is objectively not good. Avoiding carcinogens is objectively good.

Just because you think Sword Art Online is good or bad, and just because your opinion is subjective, does not mean that the actual, objective merits (or lack thereof) of Sword Art Online do or do not exist, or whether your assessment is true or false. The objective quality of Sword Art Online exists, regardless of any human being's incapacity to perceive it objectively.

Manaban said:

It doesn't really seem to be within the realm of reason to me to assert something that we are incapable of ever perceiving as being something that exists ._. From the way I'm reading this, it comes across as if it's just faith being placed in a higher, unachievable entity existing rather than the concrete fact that it exists.

It sounds like adhering to chasing an entity that will never be reached, basically, and I'm simply not the type of person with an interest in treating things that cannot be perceived as a reality.

Cjakarin said:
i mean.. Gintama is a well-known Anime and imo its one of the best anime ever made..

and then there's SAO.

Fvlminatvs said:

Well, there is objective fact. That's the thing.

A quick point, though, first. The objectivity or subjectivity of a statement is determined by the structure and nature of the statement and not the truth or falsehood of the statement. For example, to say "SAO is bad" is to make a subjective statement, but to say "The sky is green" is to make an objective one. Despite the second one being demonstrably false, it is still categorically objective.

Why do I bring that up? Well, certain statements are assumed to be epistemologically subjective in which a qualitative assessment is being made that is not necessarily demonstrable. An interesting question might be to ask if the statement, "Objectivity doesn't exist" an objective or subjective statement?

Regardless, some of an anime's attributes can be objectively measured, like run-time, cell count, etc. Some can't, such as personal satisfaction, which varies due to individual taste. I've argued elsewhere, though, that thousands of years of study has built up a library of techniques, metrics, rubrics, and criteria that can be used to try to lessen one's subjectivity.

If you can lessen subjectivity, it indicates that this is not a zero-sum equation and that subjectivity and objectivity both inhabit positions on a spectrum.

That and I am tired of the kindergarten-level rhetoric being bandied about by people with maybe a semester of basic college writing under their belts, saying "objectivity doesn't exist" as a conversation stopper and instant-win-button debate tactic. That it is usually accompanied by a smug arrogance despite having barely any actual literary or philosophical background speaks volumes about the intellectual honesty of those who apply this overused canard.

This entire business is virtually a non-debate in academic circles. When I mention this to my lit prof colleagues they are absolutely perplexed because this is such a non-issue to anyone with a shred of real, actual education.


Objectivity exists. You perceive it all of the time. Whether or not you can ascertain the objective qualities of an anime doesn't mean you cannot ascertain the objective goodness achieved by not smoking a cigarette or eating your vegetables instead of junk food. (I should hope you can at least do the second).

TheBrainintheJar said:
These many techniques of analysis don't help us reach objectivity because value judgments cannot be objective. They're the result of subject-object interaction, not a mode of the object. These techniques, instead, help us better understand why we like what we do and how we react to it.

I don't expect an objective fact from a review of a work, but I expect greater understanding from it.

AnimeDownUnder said:
Only if it's one piece or jojo's bizarre adventure

Fvlminatvs said:

Brain, at the risk of sounding like Yudina, you do not know what you are talking about. This statement you made is false. There are techniques that allow us to assess quality and can reduce personal bias. I use some of them whenever I grade papers--i.e. I have direct, personal experience using them.

In addition, you do what you have a regular habit of doing--picking one single piece of an argument and then countering it alone as though that refutes my entire position.

I've discussed this elsewhere. I don't feel like reiterating myself ad infinitum about an pointless argument. The fact is, I personally know lit profs who think this entire debate makes zero sense and achieves nothing.

You and everyone else hangs on to this zero-sum, binary subjectivity-objectivity dichotomy for reasons I can only guess at. It is not constructive. As I said elsewhere, it is wielded as a conversation-stopper and automatic-win-button, which is intellectually dishonest.