Forum Settings
Forums

Why do some people believe in ''objectivity'' when it comes to story telling mediums ?

Pages (11) « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »
Post New Reply
Jun 3, 2013 11:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 26478
Neane1993 said:
I swear, 9988 and nekovision are the most irritating people on this site. And I don't mean that in a good way.
What about Plusme, though he only shows up when there's an old vs new thread.(probably an alt anyways)
 
Jun 3, 2013 11:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 985
IntroverTurtle said:
Neane1993 said:
I swear, 9988 and nekovision are the most irritating people on this site. And I don't mean that in a good way.
What about Plusme, though he only shows up when there's an old vs new thread.(probably an alt anyways)


coughdateyutakacough *in white
 
Jun 3, 2013 11:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 7853
RyanATZsuntears said:
IntroverTurtle said:
Neane1993 said:
I swear, 9988 and nekovision are the most irritating people on this site. And I don't mean that in a good way.
What about Plusme, though he only shows up when there's an old vs new thread.(probably an alt anyways)


coughdateyutakacough *in white

I actually don't mind that guy when compared to the two Neane mentioned.
This guy however...

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.
 
Jun 3, 2013 11:39 AM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
9988 said:
BS, one can easily recognize crap from gems and diamonds.

Tastes, opinions? True, But so is shit taste and good taste.

The perfect example is moe fans, total lack of common sense, not only objectivity, you do not even need to have watched high caliber anime like LOGH or Rose of Versailles to instantly know, for example: LOGH/HARLOCK/GE999/ROSE OF VERSAILLES/COWBOY BEBOP/TOUCH/ACE WO NERAE will always be >>>>>> K-ON/MaDOKA/HARUHI/CLANNAD.

So, the I cannot be objective is pure crap to defend what you know is not that good, plain and simple and insist its the best.


I love DBZ, one of my childhood fav anime, those that are special to me, its one of my top favorites ever, its been in my favs at some point, then when someone asked me why, that its no masterpice, I had no issue saying it aint a masterpiece and has many flaws, the first part represent my subjectivity (I love it despite recognizing its flaws, and that a shounen (like OP) is superior in several levels), the last part represents my objectivity and that my love for it does not blind me from the objective truth.

When you think otherwise is just lack of objectivity and more, it is blind love.

Its as ludicrous as saying Justin Bieber/Hanson >>> Elvis/The beatles. I do not like the later, yet, I know I cannot say Motley (which I really like) is better.

So subjectivity is all fine and all. when you are capable of knowing when to draw the line and know there is ALWAYS SOMETHING BETTER, we are always capable of telling but incapable for recognizing it as such.


>implying your opinion is what's the true nature of objectivity.

This entire post is subjective bullshit, nothing else.
 
Jun 3, 2013 11:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10213
Why doesn't MAL have a Troll Training Academy yet, beats me. It's like a business goldmine.
 
Jun 3, 2013 11:50 AM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
jal90 said:
Why doesn't MAL have a Troll Training Academy yet, beats me. It's like a business goldmine.


I know right? Cognitive-behavioral therapy would also be helpful :)
 
Jun 3, 2013 1:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 874
StopDropAndBowl said:
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


And who is going to set that criteria? Because if fun sets criteria by his own standards it is still just his opinion and not objective opinion.

The criteria can be said to be subjective, but the judging based on that criteria can be objective.

If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not?

That is an extreme example, but let's take another one: if the majority of people agree that good stories have to have logical development/eventualities, than the story can be judged to be good or bad objectively based on that criteria. Was the development logical, or was it nonsensical? Did the events follow a logical path from previous events? Even if we can argue over what constitutes logical, or if something was logical or not, the judgement can still be objective. If we find a common ground of agreement and then base it off of that, then within that framework we have objective measurements.

It would be silly to take seriously someone who says: "Good writing is illogical, is riddled with grammatical errors, is uncreative, and is filled with one-dimensional characters who have no logical development or depth." I would posit with some confidence that this opinion does not actually exist as a real opinion. Thus we can say that all people, to some degree, agree upon those being the traits of bad writing, or at least, not-good writing. Within the only reasonable and serious criteria being offered, we can then objectively judge the quality of writing, to some degree. The criteria is itself still subjective, but it allows for objectivity. Hence, the existence of objectivity in reviewing art is confirmed.

As for the other argument offered: the problem is not in making an argument of semantics, it is doing so while still misunderstanding/misrepresenting the definition of the word in question.


Your logic has one big mistake, you see you sad that objective opinion is when you judge something with having criteria but that criteria can be subjective. But then you will have lots of different criteria as that criteria is subjective so with different criteria you use to rate something you will get different opinions and if there are different opinions than they are subjective opinions and not objective. Your example also shows that you are not right you sad like this "If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not? " But it only made YOU laugh it doesn't mean that it will make anybody else laugh so it is once again your subjective opinion about is that show funny or not it is not objective opinion just because it made you laugh.
The real world is past the virtual world is future.



 
Jun 3, 2013 1:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2271
jal90 said:
Why doesn't MAL have a Troll Training Academy yet, beats me. It's like a business goldmine.


Don't you see? MAL is one big troll training academy already :P
Does anyone else need a doctor to confirm that someone without a head is dead?
 
Jun 3, 2013 2:01 PM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


And who is going to set that criteria? Because if fun sets criteria by his own standards it is still just his opinion and not objective opinion.

The criteria can be said to be subjective, but the judging based on that criteria can be objective.

If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not?

That is an extreme example, but let's take another one: if the majority of people agree that good stories have to have logical development/eventualities, than the story can be judged to be good or bad objectively based on that criteria. Was the development logical, or was it nonsensical? Did the events follow a logical path from previous events? Even if we can argue over what constitutes logical, or if something was logical or not, the judgement can still be objective. If we find a common ground of agreement and then base it off of that, then within that framework we have objective measurements.

It would be silly to take seriously someone who says: "Good writing is illogical, is riddled with grammatical errors, is uncreative, and is filled with one-dimensional characters who have no logical development or depth." I would posit with some confidence that this opinion does not actually exist as a real opinion. Thus we can say that all people, to some degree, agree upon those being the traits of bad writing, or at least, not-good writing. Within the only reasonable and serious criteria being offered, we can then objectively judge the quality of writing, to some degree. The criteria is itself still subjective, but it allows for objectivity. Hence, the existence of objectivity in reviewing art is confirmed.

As for the other argument offered: the problem is not in making an argument of semantics, it is doing so while still misunderstanding/misrepresenting the definition of the word in question.


Your logic has one big mistake, you see you sad that objective opinion is when you judge something with having criteria but that criteria can be subjective. But then you will have lots of different criteria as that criteria is subjective so with different criteria you use to rate something you will get different opinions and if there are different opinions than they are subjective opinions and not objective. Your example also shows that you are not right you sad like this "If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not? " But it only made YOU laugh it doesn't mean that it will make anybody else laugh so it is once again your subjective opinion about is that show funny or not it is not objective opinion just because it made you laugh.


But that's only your opinion, so therefore it's subjective, NOT objective. Objectivity is the realistic opinion and subjectivity is because of someone's say-so. Is it not this?
 
Jun 3, 2013 2:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2272
If true objectivity about art existed then this discussion wouldn't exist.
 
Jun 3, 2013 2:25 PM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
Akito_Kinomoto said:
If true objectivity about art existed then this discussion wouldn't exist.


Yeah but that's too hypothetical as it is.

All posts on MAL are subjective unless they are summaries of X and Y.
 
Jun 3, 2013 5:26 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
9988 said:
Ha. Seems I touched that nice nerve from the moe hordes. Thanks for proving me right. Your blindness is the best tragic comedy ever.


Sigh, I really should learn to stop giving serious replies lol. Idiot writes a fairly big post ranting about how he is right, gets replies of a similar size and somehow the fact we bothered to reply to him proves him right, and showing we are just moe fnboys never minding the fact that if that was true, his first post would make him a fanboy of objectivity and therefor unable to be objective on the topic..
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 3, 2013 6:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 96
Why is this thread still going on? Everything has been answered and now most people are just asininely arguing semantics.

There is little to no objectivity in art.

You can still argue quality with widely agreed upon yet subjective standards.

Plebeians win, elitist win. Good thread.
how i r8

1- crpy animee no gud
10- gud aniem, dep plot, lots of cute grls
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:06 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
Did it occur to anyone that the problem is not the existence of an objective review, but rather the problem is the definition of the word "objective". Under the current definition: objectivity is impartial, emotionless, and basically devoid of human influence. Since a human review can not be devoid of human influence, objective reviews can not exist.

If we leave things at that then the question asked by the OP becomes unanswerable. It also fails to provide an explanation of the factor that causes people to prefer one review over the other.
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
MantisShrimp said:
Did it occur to anyone that the problem is not the existence of an objective review, but rather the problem is the definition of the word "objective".


YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
I propose that the word objective has a different meaning, and that its current meaning is just a misconception of its true meaning.

Reality is nothing more than a series of observations, however, everyone makes different observations. Subjectivity is the observation of one specific person. Objectivity is the observation of the majority. Therefore objectivity in this sense always exists since any subject will have a observation more common than others. This also means something can both be subjective and objective; your observation can be the most popular one. Objectivity also has a scale in this case that when the most popular observation represents a larger proportion of the population, it becomes more objective.

Under this definition, the term "more objective" is explained. The statement "the earth is round" is more objective than the statement "mozart is a good musician" since the first view is less conflicted than the second.

This definition also explains reviews. Subjective reviews are the observations made by a single person. Objective reviews are someone's attempt to gather the consensus of the majority then lists those observations. It is quite obvious why in this case objective reviews are more commonly liked.
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:23 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
You just blew my mind now blow me.
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
I believe the misconception arose from the scientific revolution. Scientists such as Galileo tried to explain things "without emotions". As it turns out what they were really doing were accepting only observations that almost everyone agrees on or can make themselves. People termed this as "objectivity" and mixed in "without emotions" as its definition.
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
Jun 3, 2013 7:32 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
This is nothing more than another permutation of the same argument that pops up on this very site every other month, and not once has anyone changed their position on the subject in spite of the 1/25 ratio of intelligent and articulate comments on the matter. So just commence the frustrated circle-jerk please.
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 3, 2013 8:01 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
MantisShrimp said:
I believe the misconception arose from the scientific revolution. Scientists such as Galileo tried to explain things "without emotions". As it turns out what they were really doing were accepting only observations that almost everyone agrees on or can make themselves. People termed this as "objectivity" and mixed in "without emotions" as its definition.


Its got nothing to do with EMOTION, really..

I could state that the sun is hot with burning passion and still be objectively correct. Objectivity is the representation of fact without letting ones own opinion interfere. Since there are no facts within art, and a review is done by people, using peoples opinions, they can not be objective. Its very simple.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 3, 2013 8:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 157
Eckilsax said:
This is nothing more than another permutation of the same argument that pops up on this very site every other month, and not once has anyone changed their position on the subject in spite of the 1/25 ratio of intelligent and articulate comments on the matter. So just commence the frustrated circle-jerk please.


I can actually show you some posts that are similar to yours while there is probably no post similar to my crazy ones. You are part of this "circle" that you criticize.

miereneronaile said:
MantisShrimp said:
I believe the misconception arose from the scientific revolution. Scientists such as Galileo tried to explain things "without emotions". As it turns out what they were really doing were accepting only observations that almost everyone agrees on or can make themselves. People termed this as "objectivity" and mixed in "without emotions" as its definition.


Its got nothing to do with EMOTION, really..

I could state that the sun is hot with burning passion and still be objectively correct. Objectivity is the representation of fact without letting ones own opinion interfere. Since there are no facts within art, and a review is done by people, using peoples opinions, they can not be objective. Its very simple.


Facts come from human observations, what makes them different from other observations is that it is nearly undisputed. Opinions are the observations of a single person. Focusing on facts (a majority observation) rather than opinions (a singular observation) is simply what Galileo did.

If you classify objectivity as the majority observation, then Galileo was objective.
In this sense anime reviewers can be objective if they focus on the majority view rather than their own.
Modified by MantisShrimp, Jun 3, 2013 8:22 PM
"Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes"
 
Jun 3, 2013 9:53 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
MantisShrimp said:
Eckilsax said:
This is nothing more than another permutation of the same argument that pops up on this very site every other month, and not once has anyone changed their position on the subject in spite of the 1/25 ratio of intelligent and articulate comments on the matter. So just commence the frustrated circle-jerk please.


I can actually show you some posts that are similar to yours while there is probably no post similar to my crazy ones. You are part of this "circle" that you criticize.

miereneronaile said:
MantisShrimp said:
I believe the misconception arose from the scientific revolution. Scientists such as Galileo tried to explain things "without emotions". As it turns out what they were really doing were accepting only observations that almost everyone agrees on or can make themselves. People termed this as "objectivity" and mixed in "without emotions" as its definition.


Its got nothing to do with EMOTION, really..

I could state that the sun is hot with burning passion and still be objectively correct. Objectivity is the representation of fact without letting ones own opinion interfere. Since there are no facts within art, and a review is done by people, using peoples opinions, they can not be objective. Its very simple.


Facts come from human observations, what makes them different from other observations is that it is nearly undisputed. Opinions are the observations of a single person. Focusing on facts (a majority observation) rather than opinions (a singular observation) is simply what Galileo did.

If you classify objectivity as the majority observation, then Galileo was objective.
In this sense anime reviewers can be objective if they focus on the majority view rather than their own.


Facts are determined by human observation but they do not COME from it. Anyway, calling objectivity majority observation basically makes calling anything objective 'right' or 'better' a logical fallacy.

So if thats what you want to do(you would be wrong to do so, but that is your own choice) fine. The thing is, if that was true, the top anime list on mal would be objectively the best anime since that is what the majority has chosen.

Honestly, calling a giant collection of subjective views objective because lots of people have them? lol.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 4, 2013 12:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
miereneronaile said:

Honestly, calling a giant collection of subjective views objective because lots of people have them? lol.

Lol I know right? well he compared writing history books to reviews so not that surprised, sometimes it's just easier to ignore people mhmm..
 
Jun 4, 2013 1:11 AM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2419
miereneronaile said:
MantisShrimp said:
Eckilsax said:
This is nothing more than another permutation of the same argument that pops up on this very site every other month, and not once has anyone changed their position on the subject in spite of the 1/25 ratio of intelligent and articulate comments on the matter. So just commence the frustrated circle-jerk please.


I can actually show you some posts that are similar to yours while there is probably no post similar to my crazy ones. You are part of this "circle" that you criticize.

miereneronaile said:
MantisShrimp said:
I believe the misconception arose from the scientific revolution. Scientists such as Galileo tried to explain things "without emotions". As it turns out what they were really doing were accepting only observations that almost everyone agrees on or can make themselves. People termed this as "objectivity" and mixed in "without emotions" as its definition.


Its got nothing to do with EMOTION, really..

I could state that the sun is hot with burning passion and still be objectively correct. Objectivity is the representation of fact without letting ones own opinion interfere. Since there are no facts within art, and a review is done by people, using peoples opinions, they can not be objective. Its very simple.


Facts come from human observations, what makes them different from other observations is that it is nearly undisputed. Opinions are the observations of a single person. Focusing on facts (a majority observation) rather than opinions (a singular observation) is simply what Galileo did.

If you classify objectivity as the majority observation, then Galileo was objective.
In this sense anime reviewers can be objective if they focus on the majority view rather than their own.


Facts are determined by human observation but they do not COME from it. Anyway, calling objectivity majority observation basically makes calling anything objective 'right' or 'better' a logical fallacy.

So if thats what you want to do(you would be wrong to do so, but that is your own choice) fine. The thing is, if that was true, the top anime list on mal would be objectively the best anime since that is what the majority has chosen.

Honestly, calling a giant collection of subjective views objective because lots of people have them? lol.


Tell that to dogmatic opinions.
 
Jun 4, 2013 4:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
Arararraragi-kun said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
jal90 said:
Bad fix. A subjective statement can't be pushed to be completely right. But it was a nice try.

Ironically, the argument that it is all subjective is put forward as being objectively true.

What ? Is English your first language?


Arararraragi-kun said:

While critical thinking and reviewing is better it's still not in any way, form or shape objective and if you disagree with that then you are objectively wrong.


Welp, I guess that proves that point.
Let's go bowling.
 
Jun 4, 2013 4:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
MantisShrimp said:
Did it occur to anyone that the problem is not the existence of an objective review, but rather the problem is the definition of the word "objective". Under the current definition: objectivity is impartial, emotionless, and basically devoid of human influence. Since a human review can not be devoid of human influence, objective reviews can not exist.

That's what I mean when I say that you shouldn't argue semantics unless you actually know the definition of the word in question.
Let's go bowling.
 
Jun 4, 2013 4:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10213
Can you bring the true definition of the word then, StopDropAndBowl (preferably, with a link that proves its officiality)? Jesus freaking Christ, you've been saying the same thing for a long time.
 
Jun 4, 2013 5:06 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.
Let's go bowling.
 
Jun 4, 2013 6:06 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10213
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.

What are we discussing then?
 
Jun 4, 2013 6:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1098
^idk, you would think someone would read something before posting/linking it.
 
Jun 4, 2013 7:01 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.


Thank you very much for quoting something so conveniently showing that you can not objectively discuss art, yet again.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 4, 2013 9:07 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2108
I feel that objectivity is hardly ever clearly defined, because no matter the content of a film, there is always someone who is going to define or translate the contents differently whether it be formulaic, original or perhaps you carry the thought process of perceiving "less is more" or sometimes "more is more" and commonly in anime "more of 'less is more'".
As for constructive criticism, people may have strong constructive criticism for a show, but does that make them subjectively superior to another individual who cannot do the same, not necessarily, all it legitimately proves is that person A is better at talking and presenting their feelings on a subject or topic than person B, so judging first hand based on what they have written becomes the primary factor in how a person judges the individual making the statement.
I feel that objectively a movie or film can be good by determining how many translations of the characters and events can be made from the film or series that is being discussed, but that is an objective opinion, subjectively, I place enjoyment of a series above the quality of complex storytelling, because complex storytelling can be made even from titles that can at times be deemed absolute mediocrity and can be defined as cliched, this is more or less the individual making the subjective statement about the film in question.
Whilst context again is differently translated depending on many primary factors, maturity and understand, experience and observation and of course primary factors as to how an individual thinks. This becomes a subjective opinion once again.
So basically a person may find a professionals view as objectively right.
Professional's were saying that "women were a deformation of the male species" back in the early 1900s. Popular opinion can be very motivating for how a person deems something to be objectively correct, even if subjectively they believe it to be wrong.
That is why film-makers make films that are designed for intended audiences because they are aware of this fact.
 
Jun 4, 2013 7:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1585
jal90 said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.

What are we discussing then?

The fact that one can judge things objectively, hence the inclusion of the words: "objective judgement" in the fucking example of the definition...

I can discuss whether a story followed a specific set of criteria without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations... That is the point. People were posting flawed definitions and then arguing based on those flawed definitions that an objective judgement is, by definition, impossible. It isn't impossible. I outlined how it was possible. Further, the entire argument has two parts: semantics is only one part. Getting semantics out of the way: we can then discuss whether someone can or can't judge something objectively. I said they can and provided examples. Thus far, the responses I've gotten are:

1. But the criteria is subjective. (I addressed this in the original post: the criteria is subjective, the judgement based on the criteria can be objective)
2. You're so stupid. OMG! Such a retard. (Like I said, this is a pretty cute response.)

It's getting a bit ridiculous at this point. No one noticed <objective judgement> and <objective art> in the goddamn examples?
Let's go bowling.
 
Jun 4, 2013 10:58 PM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
StopDropAndBowl said:
jal90 said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.

What are we discussing then?

The fact that one can judge things objectively, hence the inclusion of the words: "objective judgement" in the fucking example of the definition...

I can discuss whether a story followed a specific set of criteria without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations... That is the point. People were posting flawed definitions and then arguing based on those flawed definitions that an objective judgement is, by definition, impossible. It isn't impossible. I outlined how it was possible. Further, the entire argument has two parts: semantics is only one part. Getting semantics out of the way: we can then discuss whether someone can or can't judge something objectively. I said they can and provided examples. Thus far, the responses I've gotten are:

1. But the criteria is subjective. (I addressed this in the original post: the criteria is subjective, the judgement based on the criteria can be objective)
2. You're so stupid. OMG! Such a retard. (Like I said, this is a pretty cute response.)

It's getting a bit ridiculous at this point. No one noticed <objective judgement> and <objective art> in the goddamn examples?

\
Actually, you cant do that. You can try to do that, do a bit of that, but you actually cant do it. Ill concede that some judgments appear more objective than others. The thing is, literally anything you choose to do or say is influenced by feelings, prejudices, and interpretations. This is why an objective judgement is, by definition, impossible. The word itself, excepting when talking about FACTS, is a contradiction.

Btw, that reply is neither semantic or a pointless insult.

Im simply saying no one can disregard their feelings totally. They are ALWAYS represented in what we say and do.

Also, when reviewing, the CHOICE of what criteria to use is subjective as well as the criteria, and this results in any opinion given being subjective. The final thing though, is with art, two people can give totally different results on the same criteria, even when trying to be objective.

Ultimately, it is not just the criteria that are subjective, but our interpretation of them. Was the story well paced? Even trying to be objective 100 people could give 100 different answers to that question. Unfortunately for you, simply saying 'I am being objective' does NOT make it so.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 4, 2013 11:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
miereneronaile said:

Ultimately, it is not just the criteria that are subjective, but our interpretation of them. Was the story well paced? Even trying to be objective 100 people could give 100 different answers to that question. Unfortunately for you, simply saying 'I am being objective' does NOT make it so.


100 people could give 100 different answers. Except they most likely wouldn't. More likely then not more people would feel one way over another. Does that make the majority right? Not always, but it sure as hell is more reliable and valid than a guy going 'well that's just your opinion' when their favourite anime is called into question, for example.
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 5, 2013 12:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 10213
StopDropAndBowl said:
jal90 said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.

What are we discussing then?

The fact that one can judge things objectively, hence the inclusion of the words: "objective judgement" in the fucking example of the definition...

Of course one can judge some things objectively, when there's no room for interpretation and the result is inequivocal. That's the approach scientists try to have (and even in that case judging objectively can be a chore). We are debating if we can judge art quality objectively, which is bound to interpretation, because it's not evident, it's not based on facts and ultimately it doesn't even have an universal set of rules.

StopDropAndBowl said:
I can discuss whether a story followed a specific set of criteria without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations... That is the point. People were posting flawed definitions and then arguing based on those flawed definitions that an objective judgement is, by definition, impossible. It isn't impossible. I outlined how it was possible.

But the thing is, the definition does prove my point, as it talks about interpretations. The whole issue around the analysis of art quality is judging whether something is good or bad. How can we do that without a personal approximation? Even if we judge around well-proved facts, those are not "good" or "bad" by themselves. They are in regards to a definition we make previously and insert into our judgements.

StopDropAndBowl said:
Further, the entire argument has two parts: semantics is only one part. Getting semantics out of the way: we can then discuss whether someone can or can't judge something objectively. I said they can and provided examples. Thus far, the responses I've gotten are:

1. But the criteria is subjective. (I addressed this in the original post: the criteria is subjective, the judgement based on the criteria can be objective)

Well, I call that being true to your criteria, that is, judging strictly in its basis, not being objective.

StopDropAndBowl said:
2. You're so stupid. OMG! Such a retard. (Like I said, this is a pretty cute response.)



StopDropAndBowl said:
It's getting a bit ridiculous at this point. No one noticed <objective judgement> and <objective art> in the goddamn examples?

If you want to define a word based on decontextualized examples alone and ignore the main definition, okay, do it...
 
Jun 5, 2013 1:37 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Eckilsax said:
miereneronaile said:

Ultimately, it is not just the criteria that are subjective, but our interpretation of them. Was the story well paced? Even trying to be objective 100 people could give 100 different answers to that question. Unfortunately for you, simply saying 'I am being objective' does NOT make it so.


100 people could give 100 different answers. Except they most likely wouldn't. More likely then not more people would feel one way over another. Does that make the majority right? Not always, but it sure as hell is more reliable and valid than a guy going 'well that's just your opinion' when their favourite anime is called into question, for example.


Its more reliable, but its not more objective.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 5, 2013 2:20 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12784
StopDropAndBowl said:
jal90 said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

That works. It says nothing of being devoid of human influence.

What are we discussing then?

The fact that one can judge things objectively, hence the inclusion of the words: "objective judgement" in the fucking example of the definition...

I can discuss whether a story followed a specific set of criteria without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations... That is the point.
I don't think you understand the definition you posted. In order to determine the objectivity of a judgment, one must first possess knowledge of the order of events as it happens in reality, such that art can be objective according to that definition if it presents a scene in realism, or a historical account of war can be objective if it is told without bias. The problem with applying this definition to anime is that anime is almost always fictional and exaggerated -- the opposite of real. The judgment that anime is good or bad is equally nonsensical according to this definition. Goodness is a value, not a fact that could be objectively verified.

To be sure, you are attempting to apply a definition of "objectivity" that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and construing it to be that if something is objective by some definition, then it must be objective by any other definition. The definition you are using is inapplicable to a judgment on the goodness of anime. The real definition in question that is relevant to this discussion is:
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Jun 5, 2013 2:54 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
Wow people still beat this dead horse?

Guys, Values are not objective and never will be.
E-value-ating anime based one preset criteria still is subjective.
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
Jun 5, 2013 3:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
miereneronaile said:
Eckilsax said:
miereneronaile said:

Ultimately, it is not just the criteria that are subjective, but our interpretation of them. Was the story well paced? Even trying to be objective 100 people could give 100 different answers to that question. Unfortunately for you, simply saying 'I am being objective' does NOT make it so.


100 people could give 100 different answers. Except they most likely wouldn't. More likely then not more people would feel one way over another. Does that make the majority right? Not always, but it sure as hell is more reliable and valid than a guy going 'well that's just your opinion' when their favourite anime is called into question, for example.


Its more reliable, but its not more objective.


But you're arguing objectivity does not exist and is fundamentally subjective, so the reliability of consensus opinion is the most logical way to determine the closest thing to objectivity.
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 5, 2013 4:05 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Eckilsax said:
miereneronaile said:
Eckilsax said:
miereneronaile said:

Ultimately, it is not just the criteria that are subjective, but our interpretation of them. Was the story well paced? Even trying to be objective 100 people could give 100 different answers to that question. Unfortunately for you, simply saying 'I am being objective' does NOT make it so.


100 people could give 100 different answers. Except they most likely wouldn't. More likely then not more people would feel one way over another. Does that make the majority right? Not always, but it sure as hell is more reliable and valid than a guy going 'well that's just your opinion' when their favourite anime is called into question, for example.


Its more reliable, but its not more objective.


But you're arguing objectivity does not exist and is fundamentally subjective, so the reliability of consensus opinion is the most logical way to determine the closest thing to objectivity.


Actually, that is just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum really.

You are just saying 'because lots of people believe it to be so, it is so' which is an obvious load of shit. Objectivity has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how many people believe it to be true or not.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 5, 2013 4:08 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 802
Gorim said:
Actually that is a good definition. "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> ".

The only funny part of it is how most of the modern history writers agree with it, but don't with the examples given from it. There is no "objective history of the war" as far as historians are conserned. History is only gathering of evidence and INTERPRATING them on your own way. You can never have all the evidence so your interpration is lacking and distorted by that fact.
http://www.helium.com/items/365987-why-history-can-never-be-objective

"1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

It is a question that is very argued question in realms of philosophy, antropology, social psychology and some other sience whether there are objective moral values or not. Values that are indpependent regardless of your upbrining and cultural effect on you. Some say yes and some say no. Historians view the matter usually that you can never get rid off completely no matter how hard you try from the cultural effect you were raised in. Your moral values of that culture will always subconciously come into your way of judgement no matter how minor that is and distort your view.



Just like history is not just facts, but it requiers interpretation so is with reviewing anime. It isn't facts laid out on you, you have to interprete them on your own way. Whether something was good or bad is up to your own interpretation of the series's events.


Ahh such a smart comment.

But really guys, it's dead now, you don't need to beat it any longer.
I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXwerVFCY-50PTBnedey1PQ
 
Jun 5, 2013 4:09 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Orsonius said:
Gorim said:
Actually that is a good definition. "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> ".

The only funny part of it is how most of the modern history writers agree with it, but don't with the examples given from it. There is no "objective history of the war" as far as historians are conserned. History is only gathering of evidence and INTERPRATING them on your own way. You can never have all the evidence so your interpration is lacking and distorted by that fact.
http://www.helium.com/items/365987-why-history-can-never-be-objective

"1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

It is a question that is very argued question in realms of philosophy, antropology, social psychology and some other sience whether there are objective moral values or not. Values that are indpependent regardless of your upbrining and cultural effect on you. Some say yes and some say no. Historians view the matter usually that you can never get rid off completely no matter how hard you try from the cultural effect you were raised in. Your moral values of that culture will always subconciously come into your way of judgement no matter how minor that is and distort your view.



Just like history is not just facts, but it requiers interpretation so is with reviewing anime. It isn't facts laid out on you, you have to interprete them on your own way. Whether something was good or bad is up to your own interpretation of the series's events.


Ahh such a smart comment.

But really guys, it's dead now, you don't need to beat it any longer.


If its dead, how does it keep getting discussed?
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 5, 2013 4:23 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 12784
Gorim said:
Just like history is not just facts, but it requiers interpretation so is with reviewing anime. It isn't facts laid out on you, you have to interprete them on your own way. Whether something was good or bad is up to your own interpretation of the series's events.
The difference between history and anime is that in history there is a reality in which we could compare the interpretation, but not anime. It is possible for there to be "objective history" according to that particular definition, but not "objective anime" -- because anime is fiction and there exists no real life comparison.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
 
Jun 5, 2013 4:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
miereneronaile, you're arguing the definition of a concept you claim doesn't even exist. Carry on.
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 5, 2013 5:05 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Eckilsax said:
miereneronaile, you're arguing the definition of a concept you claim doesn't even exist. Carry on.


Err, yes, pretty much.

I need to define what it is I think does not exist.

I would have thought this was fairly obvious...
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 5, 2013 7:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 702
This thread is a troll orgy. Objective or subjective?
Ooo, what a lovely tea party.
 
Jun 5, 2013 7:55 AM
Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3082
Eckilsax said:
This thread is a troll orgy. Objective or subjective?


Not sure, as I can not really know for sure if everyone is trolling. Neither can you, for that matter, so it was a subjective statement but could be objectively correct.
Worships Asparagus.
 
Jun 5, 2013 12:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 874
EmeraldSlate said:
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
wukp said:
StopDropAndBowl said:
The problem here is that the OP and those who agree with him are using semantic arguments, and they are not even getting the definitions right...

As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively by that criteria.


And who is going to set that criteria? Because if fun sets criteria by his own standards it is still just his opinion and not objective opinion.

The criteria can be said to be subjective, but the judging based on that criteria can be objective.

If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not?

That is an extreme example, but let's take another one: if the majority of people agree that good stories have to have logical development/eventualities, than the story can be judged to be good or bad objectively based on that criteria. Was the development logical, or was it nonsensical? Did the events follow a logical path from previous events? Even if we can argue over what constitutes logical, or if something was logical or not, the judgement can still be objective. If we find a common ground of agreement and then base it off of that, then within that framework we have objective measurements.

It would be silly to take seriously someone who says: "Good writing is illogical, is riddled with grammatical errors, is uncreative, and is filled with one-dimensional characters who have no logical development or depth." I would posit with some confidence that this opinion does not actually exist as a real opinion. Thus we can say that all people, to some degree, agree upon those being the traits of bad writing, or at least, not-good writing. Within the only reasonable and serious criteria being offered, we can then objectively judge the quality of writing, to some degree. The criteria is itself still subjective, but it allows for objectivity. Hence, the existence of objectivity in reviewing art is confirmed.

As for the other argument offered: the problem is not in making an argument of semantics, it is doing so while still misunderstanding/misrepresenting the definition of the word in question.


Your logic has one big mistake, you see you sad that objective opinion is when you judge something with having criteria but that criteria can be subjective. But then you will have lots of different criteria as that criteria is subjective so with different criteria you use to rate something you will get different opinions and if there are different opinions than they are subjective opinions and not objective. Your example also shows that you are not right you sad like this "If I say: what is funny is what makes me laugh. Then, I can objectively rate whether a show was funny or not. Did it make me laugh? Did it not? " But it only made YOU laugh it doesn't mean that it will make anybody else laugh so it is once again your subjective opinion about is that show funny or not it is not objective opinion just because it made you laugh.


But that's only your opinion, so therefore it's subjective, NOT objective. Objectivity is the realistic opinion and subjectivity is because of someone's say-so. Is it not this?


Objectivity isn't realistic opinion objectivity is something that is true however you look at it.I guess that main problem with this thread is that some people here don't really know what objectivity is. EmeraldSlate was right when hi sad "As long as one sets the criteria by which a piece of art is to be judged, one can usually judge it objectively" except that you would need objective criteria otherwise it lose the point.
The real world is past the virtual world is future.



 
Jun 5, 2013 12:40 PM
Destroy w/ Laser

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 5771
The only way I can justify judging an anime objectively is by talking about more technical things like sound and video quality; like if the video looks too pixelated or if the sound cuts out every now and then. Y'know, editing errors and things of that nature.

Other than that, it's all subjective.
 
Top
Pages (11) « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »