MyAnimeList.net
var trackOutboundLink = function(url) {
ga('send', 'event', 'outbound', 'click', url, {
'transport': 'beacon',
'hitCallback': function(){return true;}
});
}

Forum Settings

Forums

thewiru said:HyperL said:Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect). We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation. "His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos.The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict. The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities." Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down. I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art. That's assuming I even agree with half of this Block guy's assertions. I agree that we need criterias in order to make a quality evaluation. Btw, I'm considering quality and value as different things here. I disagree, however, on the notion that any of these criterias are de facto objective, or in other words, inherent in its value or status as a parameter of evaluation. Thinking of sending me a friend request? Before you do it, please check the 'Friend request' section of my profile. |

RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:Peaceful_Critic said:@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is critic noun (1) Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned.crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation beingPeaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think?RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because:1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment.2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art).Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said:"There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said:"think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said:are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: axiom noun Emphasis mine.ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said:"But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said:"X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said:believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said:"Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake.Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said:How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without. |

HyperL said:thewiru said:HyperL said:Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect). We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation. "His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos.The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict. The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities." Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down. I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art. That's assuming I even agree with half of this Block guy's assertions. I agree that we need criterias in order to make a quality evaluation. Btw, I'm considering quality and value as different things here. I disagree, however, on the notion that any of these criterias are de facto objective, or in other words, inherent in its value or status as a parameter of evaluation. The problem here is half the people posting in this thread have no idea what objectivity means, yet they want to reject what the dictionary and the past 1000 years of philosophy has to say on the matter. |

katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:[edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. "Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example:P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. "The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not." There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said:"Quantities itself is measurable by definition." Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems. RogertheShrubber said:"Rigorous logic does not make something objective." mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective. "Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubberThis is clearly false. RogertheShrubber said:"Premises that are independent of individual judgment" in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition. RogertheShrubber said:P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. "Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion?" That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified. "This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: " I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence. "Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified." I never said they were, my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous. "Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment" Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable. "or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible." You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics. "Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor." I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound". |

deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. |

katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it |

katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:Peaceful_Critic said:@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is critic noun (1) Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned.crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation beingPeaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think?RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because:1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment.2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art).Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said:"There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said:"think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said:are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: axiom noun Emphasis mine.ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said:"But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said:"X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said:believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said:"Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake.Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said:How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without. "I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems." Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning. "What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument." On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent. "Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective." And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same. "Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without." As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system. A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic. Modified by RogertheShrubber, May 20, 6:27 PM |

it's mostly just a bunch of psueds who think they're masters of analysis. It's possible to be more objective by using evidence to justify your analysis, but a 100% unbiased take that actually has any weight as a statement isn't going to happen I run a small discord community link is in bio |

deg said:katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public". "If you throw your life away, you won’t even have the capacity to feel regret." |

Aastra343 said:deg said:katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public". i will add with those Academy Awards that usually give awards to like unknown movies most of the times that the public/majority does not care about, but ye recently they started giving awards to popular movies too and not exactly related to your comment but i will just add this too for the sake of this thread https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1674906 if there is objectivity in anime how come only few anime finds success especially profit wise? objectivity is about facts and facts are OLD good tried and tested things so its against the human tendency to want something NEW |

deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and loose/informal definitions In this case the so called loose definition fails to encapsulate true "hard" objectivity and allow for scenarios in which tecnically subjective concepts (by the standards of hard objectivity) are passed as hard objectives. You can already observe the consequences of such equivoquence everywhere, including this site. Thinking of sending me a friend request? Before you do it, please check the 'Friend request' section of my profile. |

@katsucats "You seem to be confused as to the difference between proving something and being objective. Objectivity starts with an empirical premise (i.e. sensing, as opposed to perceiving). It involves no judgment. All character traits involve judgment. You can't see something and derive a trait without thinking about it. At the same time, "characters" do not exist in media, your mind constructs them through the combination of audio and visuals. For example, if audio sparsely correlates with the movement of a certain 'shape' of pixels, you might think that a "character is shy". However, this is several steps removed. Shyness itself involves interpretation. You might think a character is shy, but another person could have latched on to another aspect of the character, and called him boisterous. Another person could assert that it's not a character at all, but metaphorical representation of insecurity, and that the plot isn't actually happening. The discerning behind these 3 possibilities occur 100% in subjectivity -- defending them requires explaining how a person arrived at the conclusion with his line of thought. They all saw the same pixels, and describing the pixels amount to redundancy." The objective starts and ends with the proof itself. You don't need to count the pixels in order to be objective in that case, that's an extreme form. What happens within that scene is objective in so far in what you were visually shown. Now you can interpret and draw to different conclusions, but if they aren't supported by what's shown you reached a wrong conclusion. Take saying a mute character is loud despite not talking in the show, you'll likely be wrong unless you show a scene where they make a lot of noise some other way. If there are no scenes like that, then the person would be wrong since nothing objective supports it. "But not objective. None of what you are discerning can be scientifically measured. There is no definition of clumsiness that isn't culturally derived, and by relative comparison to the norm. I could say the character is an attention whore falling on purpose, and you'd have no decisive evidence to prove me wrong by any standard besides opinion." Not everything objective is scientific, there are other forms. There is a definition on what counts as clumsy though, it may be a comparison type thing, but it is something that can be proven using the definition. I could point to a scene where they were yelling and crying due to all the attention they were receiving. That would be decisive evidence that contradicts the claim. "Subjectivity is not just what's good or bad, but also what's clumsy. What you need is a dictionary before you continue this conversation" I wasn't defining subjectively. I just said to subjectively explain what is good or bad. I never told you what subjectively explain means. What you need to do is actually read what I said before you dismiss me."... subjective fact." That's an oxymoron though if it's subjective than it isn't a fact something known or proven to be true. |

katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. "It also causes them to attempt to summarize authoritatively character, story, sound, audio, etc., when that is a very contrived format for a review. I have never seen a review from any other medium, nor people, that seem to think this is a good idea. No professional reviewer writes in this format." I am not arguing for this review format, in fact I find it unbearably pointless. No review can be boiled down to five or six talking points, or if it does it missed the point entirely. "Countless anime discussions are polluted by people purporting to be objective, and also purporting that subjective analysis are worthless, when they are the only kind of analysis that's worth something." I agree, people who use objective truth to mean categorical truth are my biggest pet peeve. I would say however that an Exclusively subjective analysis is worthless, and I would argue that this subjective appeal should be presented in an objective manner whenever possible. "regardless of what any fake physicist says" I have my bachelors in physics and I'm working towards my masters in quantum mechanics. Feel free to think what you like but fuck off with the ignorant taunts. Modified by RogertheShrubber, May 20, 6:52 PM |

HyperL said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and loose/informal definitions In this case the so called loose definition fails to encapsulate true "hard" objectivity and allow for scenarios in which tecnically subjective concepts (by the standards of hard objectivity) are passed as hard objectives. You can already observe the consequences of such equivoquence everywhere, including this site. ye the loose definition of objective is subjective too anyway and a lot of critics/reviews on this site alone preach their pseudo-objectivity as some hard facts or the readers of those critics/reviews treat is as hard facts too the internet is serious business thats all |

deg said:Aastra343 said:deg said:katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it Yeah, the critics sometimes have a different perception of the "public" (I guess you mean majority in this case), because they have a different baggage (regarding theory, media exposure, media knowledge, personnal tastes, experiences) with which to experience a work. In fact, everyone does. When you say "professional critics", you're using a quite small sample size, but when you say "public", you generalize and don't look at the individual perceptions each person has about it. It's just critics share more similar baggage amongst themselves than with the "public". i will add with those Academy Awards that usually give awards to like unknown movies most of the times that the public/majority does not care about, but ye recently they started giving awards to popular movies too As a professor of mine once said: film elitists love to circle jerk their ego to their own "refined" taste. But their audience was dropping year after year and if there's something that will wreck one's ego is threatening their finances. "If you throw your life away, you won’t even have the capacity to feel regret." |

RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:[edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. "Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example:P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. "The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not." There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said:"Quantities itself is measurable by definition." Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems. RogertheShrubber said:"Rigorous logic does not make something objective." mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective. "Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubberThis is clearly false. RogertheShrubber said:"Premises that are independent of individual judgment" in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition. RogertheShrubber said:P1. I believe action anime are good. If you were to show that 1. there is a valid justification for why action anime are good (that which is self consistent) and 2. that SAO is indeed an action anime then yes this would be a rigorous and thus objective case. Although this would likely do little to convince many people. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified. RogertheShrubber said:"This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: " I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence. But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological. Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made. RogertheShrubber said:"Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified." I never said they were, RogertheShrubber said:There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said:my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous. RogertheShrubber said:"Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment" Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable. RogertheShrubber said:"or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible." You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy.RogertheShrubber said:"Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor." I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound". RogertheShrubber said:I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence. |

deg said:katsucats said:deg said:can we all just agree that the word objective has both strict/formal and informal definitions Nobody reads a good that says "This happened. And then this happened. And that happened." and thinks it's well-written, except for anime fans reading reviews. Only when these fobs stop perverting language with this nonsense can people go back to actually discussing what they like about something particular with articulate language. The silver lining, I guess, is that I can find people who aren't afraid of themselves regardless of what any fake physicist says. i do not read much reviews anyway since with the strict definition of objective then that means as you said earlier there should be like a scientific measurement for art like anime so the anime industry should be able to make more objectively enjoyable shows and sturgeons law will become obsolete deg said:and even in hollywood this so called critics especially professional ones at times fail to measure the public enjoyment of a movie anyway, example is Venom that is heavily rated down by critics but actually enjoyed by the public deg said:so ye this objectivity in reviews here on MAL for example are usually pseudo-objectivity or loose definition of it |

RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:Peaceful_Critic said:@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is critic noun (1) Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned.crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation beingPeaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think?RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because:1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment.2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art).Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said:"There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said:"think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said:are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: axiom noun Emphasis mine.ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said:"But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said:"X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said:believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said:"Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake.Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said:How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without. "I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems." Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning. 1. They are an axiom, self-evidently based on intuition. 2. They do not require deliberate judgment to apply. RogertheShrubber said:"What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument." On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent. RogertheShrubber said:"Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective." And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same. RogertheShrubber said:"Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without." As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system. RogertheShrubber said:A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic. |

Peaceful_Critic said:@katsucats "You seem to be confused as to the difference between proving something and being objective. Objectivity starts with an empirical premise (i.e. sensing, as opposed to perceiving). It involves no judgment. All character traits involve judgment. You can't see something and derive a trait without thinking about it. At the same time, "characters" do not exist in media, your mind constructs them through the combination of audio and visuals. For example, if audio sparsely correlates with the movement of a certain 'shape' of pixels, you might think that a "character is shy". However, this is several steps removed. Shyness itself involves interpretation. You might think a character is shy, but another person could have latched on to another aspect of the character, and called him boisterous. Another person could assert that it's not a character at all, but metaphorical representation of insecurity, and that the plot isn't actually happening. The discerning behind these 3 possibilities occur 100% in subjectivity -- defending them requires explaining how a person arrived at the conclusion with his line of thought. They all saw the same pixels, and describing the pixels amount to redundancy." The objective starts and ends with the proof itself. You don't need to count the pixels in order to be objective in that case, that's an extreme form. What happens within that scene is objective in so far in what you were visually shown. Peaceful_Critic said:Now you can interpret and draw to different conclusions, but if they aren't supported by what's shown you reached a wrong conclusion. Peaceful_Critic said:Take saying a mute character is loud despite not talking in the show, you'll likely be wrong unless you show a scene where they make a lot of noise some other way. If there are no scenes like that, then the person would be wrong since nothing objective supports it. Peaceful_Critic said:"But not objective. None of what you are discerning can be scientifically measured. There is no definition of clumsiness that isn't culturally derived, and by relative comparison to the norm. I could say the character is an attention whore falling on purpose, and you'd have no decisive evidence to prove me wrong by any standard besides opinion." Not everything objective is scientific, there are other forms. There is a definition on what counts as clumsy though, it may be a comparison type thing, but it is something that can be proven using the definition. Peaceful_Critic said:I could point to a scene where they were yelling and crying due to all the attention they were receiving. That would be decisive evidence that contradicts the claim. Peaceful_Critic said:"Subjectivity is not just what's good or bad, but also what's clumsy. What you need is a dictionary before you continue this conversation" I wasn't defining subjectively. I just said to subjectively explain what is good or bad. I never told you what subjectively explain means. What you need to do is actually read what I said before you dismiss me.Peaceful_Critic said:Now I am able to apply it to the context and explain subjectively why it's good or bad, but I should still support the things I'm saying. Peaceful_Critic said:If I say a character is clumsy then I show you that they fall or trip all the time and I can show you several scenes to support that then I am objectively right. You see, I am quite impervious to these half-assed attempts to lie. Peaceful_Critic said:"... subjective fact." That's an oxymoron though if it's subjective than it isn't a fact something known or proven to be true. |

katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:[edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. "Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example:P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. "The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not." There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said:"Quantities itself is measurable by definition." Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems. RogertheShrubber said:"Rigorous logic does not make something objective." mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective. "Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubberThis is clearly false. RogertheShrubber said:"Premises that are independent of individual judgment" in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition. RogertheShrubber said:P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. That is inconsequential, the theorem has no measurable justification, it rests exclusively on it's logical rigor. A implies B is still a logical argument even if A is empirically justified. RogertheShrubber said:"This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar: " I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence. But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological. Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made. RogertheShrubber said:"Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified." I never said they were, RogertheShrubber said:There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said:my point is science is typically empirically justified whereas mathematics is never empirically justified however both are logically rigorous. RogertheShrubber said:"Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment" Why does this distinction matter? there could just as easily be an intuitive (i.e. non deliberate) judgment that a certain quality of art is valuable. RogertheShrubber said:"or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible." You would only say this if you havn't understood me. It is clearly not equivalent to the judgement of HOW MUCH a person enjoys monet or the bible but it is indeed equivalent to the judgement of FOR WHAT OBJECTIVE QUALITIES of those works would make them enjoyable to a person with identical value metrics. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy.RogertheShrubber said:"Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor." I was operating under the assumption that rigor and soundness are synonymous, if they are not then simply replace everywhere I said "rigorous" with "both rigorous and sound". RogertheShrubber said:I am telling you that the only quality mathematics has is that is is logically rigorous. It has no measurable justification, there is no experiment one can make which supports a mathematical theorem. They are built from each other exclusively through logic and are based fundamentally on axioms which are inspired through intuition. Nowhere in this system is there empirical evidence. "It is, despite what you've said before that you've now contradicted. A implies B might even be said to be objective, presuming A, if it is also valid. However, if A is expressly a subjective statement, then it is unreasonable to presume A. An analysis consists not only of the internal reasoning within the analysis, since that would mean there is no premise besides the conclusion." that depends on what you mean by "presuming A, if it is also valid". In a philosophical context a valid conclusion is one which must be true if the premise were true. Note this does not mean that the premise must be true for A to be valid it need only follow logically from the premise. For example if pigs fly then they are not restricted to the ground. Obviously pigs cannot fly but the conclusion is still valid since it follows naturally from the premise. Yes A cannot be subjective if B is to be objective but it needn't necessarily be true. "That's true, pedantically so. It ignores the empirical intuition that inform the rules, whether you define the number line as cardinality of a set or by induction. Math, if defined as a logical system, does not regard the veracity of its premises; yet as we know, the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality." "the numbers, the premises, mean something that corresponds to reality" no we assume this to be true, it's arrogant to assume that this cannot possibly be false. "So what's absolutely heinous on your part is treating math rigorously and informally when it is convenient. If rigorously, the truth value of the axioms are irrelevant. If informally, the truth value of the axioms is relevant. You cannot have it both ways. If it is irrelevant, why did you waste 2 pages arguing about axioms? If relevant, then what are you talking about here? I think this is just another way for you to score a superfluous "win"." I don't care about "winning" frankly all I'm trying to do is understand you and be understood by you. The fact that mathematics can depend on axioms whose truth value is indeterminable and yet math is still able to be objective is what I'm getting at. This fact should justify that artistic review can be objective on the basis that a premise upon which the artistic review is based needn't necessarily have to have a determinate truth value in order for that review to be objective as long as it is rigorous. "But suppose formal math is just a logical system with arbitrary parameters, which it had been developed into post hoc. Even so, those arbitrary parameters are not the result of any deliberate judgment, insofar that the conclusions relate to the judgment. I'll give an example. In anime, if you say that a character doesn't talk a lot, therefore he is shy, the conclusion rests on the deliberate judgment of the character not talking a lot. However, asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch. Shyness implies something further beyond the inference. It gives new information, perhaps on the motivation. The rules of math does not because it is formally tautological." "asserting that someone is shy from the fact that he doesn't talk a lot is a stretch." it is a stretch because clearly this is not rigorous, further information is necessary to support this claim. Such as showing that there is not additional motivation for not talking. "Furthermore, while there is deliberate judgment in deciding the rules of math, applying the rules of math itself does not require a similar judgment. Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment, even after the judgment that characters who don't talk a lot must be shy has already been made." "Applying whether a character is shy because he talks a lot always requires personal judgment" this is only true if the conclusion is not rigorously shown to follow from the premise. also the premise you gave regarding shyness would not meet my criteria because clearly it can result is self contradictions "The intuition involved in math could be said to be inductive reasoning, classification, etc., all of which can be formally defined and consistently applied" So can an artistic value metric. If I present the premise that the lack of plot holes is artistically valuable and i go on to rigorously define exactly what a plot hole is then it would indeed be formally defined and able to be consistently applied. "There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment. Value metrics, whether quantified or existential, are subjective by nature. While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels. For example, a person does not usually describe paintings as blotches of blue above blotches of green, but in subjective terms of movement, warmth, and inspiration, etc. YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy." "There are no objective qualities that directly translate into enjoyment." The lack of plotholes for example could (assuming the individual valued such a thing) translate directly to their enjoyment. "While indeed a Monet painting has objective qualities, it is not those objective qualities that a person feels." yes but it is these objective qualities which are able to inspire feeling while viewing it. "YOU, so far in any of your posts, certainly, have not objectively described any anime, only subjectively, so I wonder why you're so intent on selling a fantasy." sure, but i haven't tried to do this, all I'm arguing for is that it is possible. "Bullshit. This is a direct contradiction with what you wrote earlier. I quote:" I'm not sure what you mean by this, I'm still not sure of the distinction between rigor and soundness. Do you mean that mathematics is rigorous but not sound? If so then let's go with that. |

katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:RogertheShrubber said:katsucats said:Peaceful_Critic said:@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation beingPeaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think?RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because:1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment.2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art).Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said:"There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said:"think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said:are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said:"But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said:"X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said:believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said:"Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake.Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said:How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective.Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without. "I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems." Yes I agree with this, the fact that they contradict does not preclude objectivity. In fact I have been making that point since the beginning. 1. They are an axiom, self-evidently based on intuition. 2. They do not require deliberate judgment to apply. RogertheShrubber said:"What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument." On what logic are we to assume the premise of an artistic review is arbitrary? I made it quite clear that is was necessary to justify this premise as to ensure it is constructive and self consistent. RogertheShrubber said:"Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective." And why can this premise not be presumed? There could just as easily be an artistic value metric which is informed by intuition as there are axioms which are informed by the same. RogertheShrubber said:"Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without." As you may remember there was another definition of Axiom, Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. This is not necessarily self evident, it is merely something which is accepted as true. This also does not imply that it must be accepted by everyone but rather accepted only within the subset engaged with that particular axiomatic system. RogertheShrubber said:A good example of this would be philosophy, there are distinct philosophical schools of thought which are self consistent and logically rigorous, within these schools of thought there are premises which are accepted as true, these premises are therefore axiomatic. "There is no fact that they contradict since they do not contradict. Your point since the beginning was that football contradicts basketball, which is incidentally irrelevant to the conversation" No this is not the point I have been making, The point I was making is that they do not have to agree with each other for either or both cases to be objective. "however, that is not the definition I am using to define an objective premise." well it's the definition that I am using. And because all i am trying to do is prove that objective review is possible all i need to do is show that there is a combination of definitions which support my claim. You have to prove than no combination exists. "Look, you can presume your own opinions are true all you like, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't roll our eyes." what the hell are you getting at, I'm not so naive as to think that my opinions are true, but they can be valid, that is they can follow naturally from my justified premise through rigorous logic. "There has not been any aesthetic metric that could be measured intersubjectively, nor that people could universally agree upon the same standard. Therefore, the premise of any aesthetic valuation cannot be presumed, because it is likely that no audience would precisely agree." Why would people need to agree with it universally. Not all scientists agree that the model of the big bang as it stands today is correct. A scientist might present an objective cases that the big bang is not consistent just as a reviewer might present an objective case that a particular value metric is not consistent. There is no universal agreement in science. |

@katsucats "You derive that a scene has occurred from your personal understanding of how stories are told, how animation is made, and how your mind infers the movement of the pixels according to your own biases." Why are you taking it to such a scientific extreme? If you saw a character fall they objectively fell. Yes, technically it is just pixels your brain interprets, but that doesn't mean you judge it 100% subjective or objective though. They do actually represent something. You can call my pic a cat, but you'll be wrong. It isn't like when we watch a show, our experiences are drastically different to the point you could say the character didn't fall. You are seeing and hearing the same thing I am, and whatever you are seeing/hearing happened in the context of the art." they are supported by how well you can articulate your reasoning, based upon your subjective interpretations." You could reason all you want about my pixelized pic representing a cat, you'll still have nothing supporting it. A big part of English(class) is supporting what you say through citations such as the MLA format or quoting a line. You need to show your reader where you got the interpretation from, you can't reason your way out of it by further explaining it. Your testimony isn't supported by your own opinion. "Science is the means to determine the objective, empirical reality. There is no other form." What's up with all these other nonscientific definitions then: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective? "No, that would be evidence that you're interpreting things differently than someone else." There is no interpretation in that scene when it came to that. The character literally, genuinely said they hated attention. "When you say "but" you should be able to support what you're saying, you are contrasting the support against the subjective explanation. You mean that the support must be objective, otherwise, you would use "and, not "but". You also mean that the support should be in addition to explaining what's good or bad. In fact, you did say a character being clumsy would be objective, here:" That was more in response to what you said as a contrast to you. The "still" part should've made that apparent. Not to mention, that was me explaining what think should be done. I did, and I mean it if I showed you a myriad proof for the claim. A character's traits relate to the objectivity of a scene. No cultures are more clumsy than others, so it shouldn't change that much between cultures that someone would say that the character was elegant due to falling only 18 times within the movie. Modified by Peaceful_Critic, May 20, 8:14 PM |

At times I give my ratings on technical grounds. At other times it's mostly about personal enjoyment, though personal significance would be somewhat more correct in my case. I often don't care about stuff other people base the majority of their ratings and vice versa. |

Anyone completely disregarding enjoyment when scoring an anime is not a human but a robot |

Pyro said:It shouldn’t feel right because that’s such a faulty and ridiculous way of thinking. If you completely remove enjoyment from your rating, then that’s basically the same as removing your taste since the personal aspect of appeal is gone. Like you said, there’s no point after that. I, myself do incorporate enjoyment on a lesser degree, but it’s still there. It’s still a key factor. To completely remove it from your summation of judgement is just impractical. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who does that and if they are out there, they’re certainly an extreme minority. Vice-versa rating solely by enjoyment and removing all critical view is ridiculous as well. There should always be a middle ground. How is rating based on enjoyment ridiculous? |

It's your own personal anime list, do what you want with it, try not to take the opinions of the majority if you like or don't like a certain show they do or don't. Repression is not healthy. " If you died, would anyone care? Would they really care? Maybe, they'd cry for a day. But, let's be honest no one would give a shit. They wouldn't. The few people that would feel obligated to go to your funeral would probably be annoyed and leave as early as possible. That's who you are. That's what you are. You are nothing to anyone. To everyone."-Mr. Robot " I can take another name, and build a new life.. But on the inside I'll always have that instinct, no matter how much I hate it. I'm yakuza through and through. Guile only gets you so far in this game. Remember that. You won't get another chance."-Kiryu Kazuma |

I only score by enjoyment + maybe +-1 additional point when it feels technically better. But then again: This is subjective. Only things like fps are objective. And you probably wouldn't score by them. The usual "technical" stuff which people try to score objectively are "animation" and stuff like that. Where less animated on purpose could still be good. (And not always more = better.) Also the anime itself is a composition of design, animation, sound (as in background noises) and music (the ost) and voice acting and directiong (story, pacing). Hard (or stupid) to score these things individually when combined with each other they could give a totally different impression. (Lilke with the less animation on purpose where it is to create a unique style which could fit perfectly together with all the other stuff. This can only be interesting for "animation fetishits" which purely want to care about animation and need an score only for this seperately because they don't care of overall it is a good anime - as long as the animation is top notch and enough to satistfy them.) |

Luthandorius said:I only score by enjoyment + maybe +-1 additional point when it feels technically better. But then again: This is subjective. Only things like fps are objective. And you probably wouldn't score by them. The usual "technical" stuff which people try to score objectively are "animation" and stuff like that. Where less animated on purpose could still be good. (And not always more = better.) Also the anime itself is a composition of design, animation, sound (as in background noises) and music (the ost) and voice acting and directiong (story, pacing). Hard (or stupid) to score these things individually when combined with each other they could give a totally different impression. (Lilke with the less animation on purpose where it is to create a unique style which could fit perfectly together with all the other stuff. This can only be interesting for "animation fetishits" which purely want to care about animation and need an score only for this seperately because they don't care of overall it is a good anime - as long as the animation is top notch and enough to satistfy them.) I don't score them for the most part maybe when it comes to a series where I have read the LN or Manga maybe |

TsukuyomiREKT said:Pyro said:It shouldn’t feel right because that’s such a faulty and ridiculous way of thinking. If you completely remove enjoyment from your rating, then that’s basically the same as removing your taste since the personal aspect of appeal is gone. Like you said, there’s no point after that. I, myself do incorporate enjoyment on a lesser degree, but it’s still there. It’s still a key factor. To completely remove it from your summation of judgement is just impractical. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who does that and if they are out there, they’re certainly an extreme minority. Vice-versa rating solely by enjoyment and removing all critical view is ridiculous as well. There should always be a middle ground. How is rating based on enjoyment ridiculous? And critical view how is that more important when pretty much a large % of fans dont know how to and soly fall on enjoyment instead |

Most of the time I score based on my enjoyment and I try to be not so critical but after watching a good amount of shows I can't help but notice that some have better things than others etc etc. For example I watched some shows that I didn't enjoy and thought it was average but I gave it a 6 cause I thought it would be unfair to give it 5 if I think the it had some good arts, animation and soundtrack. I may give some shows higher scores but I never give a show lower score than how much I actually enjoyed it not matter how shitty it is. |

MyAnimeList.net is a property of MyAnimeList, LLC. ©2019 All Rights Reserved.