Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've had trouble with this one many times and still don't fully grasp whether your perception of quality and certain issues should be primarily objective or primarily subjective.

NOTE: The following example perspectives are simply something I've observed in quite a few individuals I know personally.


The Objective Argument:

Quality is objective. If something is pristine in quality, regardless of whether you think it is optimal or shoddy, the entity in question is good because it's quality represents itself objectively. The truth is objective as well. If I have evidence, disputing my truths are redundant. Also, simply "having your opinion" doesn't make you "slightly right." If it is my opinion that a cinder block is solid and yours is that it is a gas and the block is solid, my opinion is correct and yours is incorrect. A Ferrari F50 is better than a Toyota Tercel because, due to it's low probability of failure and technological advances over the Tercel, it is a greater vehicle. Morals are essentially objective as well. No subjectivity.

The Subjective Argument:

Quality is subjective. It doesn't matter what the critics said, the film is good because I enjoyed it. The truth is not objective. Your evidence could be false and we will never know if it is or not. My opinion does matter because I determine what is quality and what is not. If I think a Toyota Tercel is better, than it is better. What if I have a Ferrari F50 and it catches on fire but my Tercel works for thirty years? Which one is better? Yes, the cinder block is a solid but was it always? Can it turn into something other than a solid? How do you truly know that it's solid? Can you prove that God does or doesn't exist? How do you know what's right and wrong? Morals are totally subjective and if I feel something is right or wrong, it is in the eye of the beholder. No objectivity.

The Objective/Subjective Argument

Some things are objective and other things are subjective. A little bit of both, yeah?


I see this often and it baffles me sometimes. I also observe it occurring in a lot of arguments where people get sidetracked. Also, for the individual who practices both objective/subjective perspectives, how do you know what to think of as "objective" and what to view as "subjective?" Thoughts?

Depends entirely on the thing being measured. Objectivity can be measured. A building can be built to a high standard using top grade materials and have top quality workmanship...This is objective...You might think it's an ugly as sin monstrosity and thus think the building is s**t...This is a subjective opinion.

An example of that, for me, is the Scottish Parliament building at Hollyrood...I personally think the building is horrible to look at but I know that the materials used were top drawer and the workmanship, for the most part, was as well.

Music can be the same...It can be excellent on a technical level in terms of how many skilled techniques the musician uses and how difficult it is to do...But if you don't like the genre or the song then you're going to think it's subjectively shit regardless of how skilled the musician is...An example of that for me is Yngwie Malmsteen. I know he ridiculously skilled on guitar but I hate his music.

You see those kinds of arguments especially when related to guitarists on youtube all the time...Most of the people utterly miss the point that music is about enjoyment and emotion more than it is about technical ability.

Isn't objective reality consensual subjectivity?

your off on this no offesense. Subjectivly is not preferences.
Objective is known as something without time applied to itself.
To a person then trees are viewed objectivly because their life span is so much longer than a person.
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
your off on this no offesense. Subjectivly is not preferences.
Objective is known as something without time applied to itself.
To a person then trees are viewed objectivly because their life span is so much longer than a person.
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
your off on this no offesense. Subjectivly is not preferences.
Objective is known as something without time applied to itself.
To a person then trees are viewed objectivly because their life span is so much longer than a person.
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly.

What the ****?

Originally posted by Wonder Man
your off on this no offesense. Subjectivly is not preferences.
Objective is known as something without time applied to itself.
To a person then trees are viewed objectivly because their life span is so much longer than a person.
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly.

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
your off on this no offesense. Subjectivly is not preferences.
Objective is known as something without time applied to itself.
To a person then trees are viewed objectivly because their life span is so much longer than a person.
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly.

Agreed, Simon.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, Simon.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/MB/MB-Simon.jpg

Originally posted by Bardock42
What the ****?

god, its actually so close... its like he saw it described in the margins of a textbook and just misinterpreted...

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Subjectivly means in order of...such as bird and plane respectivly. Wait... where does Superman fit in subjectively?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Wait... where does Superman fit in subjectively?

After the plane.

But... but Superman is smaller than the plane. I'll see it first!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But... but Superman is smaller than the plane. I'll see it first!

Not if Superman(who is objective) is subjectively closer to you than the plane. See. He'll appear life-sized; the plane will appear as a little toy, up in the sky.

EDIT: Whoops, accidental post! :P

Well, I think the real question is "does Superman exist as Superman before people perceive him as such, for example, is he still Superman when someone thinks he's a bird or is he even Superman when someone thinks he's a plane?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think the real question is "does Superman exist as Superman before people perceive him as such, for example, is he still Superman when someone thinks he's a bird or is he even Superman when someone thinks he's a plane?" Schrodinger's Superman is one tuff sonofabiatch to pin down.

Originally posted by Mindship
Schrodinger's Superman is one tuff sonofabiatch to pin down.

Indeed, if Superman's in a box and there may or may not be kryptonite in it he is both dead and alive.

Of course if there isn't kryptonite with him he'll just melt the box with his eyes.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Of course if there isn't kryptonite with him he'll just melt the box with his eyes. It's made of adamantium. Now we can also discuss "immovable object vs. unstoppable force"

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's made of adamantium. Now we can also discuss "immovable object vs. unstoppable force" That just results in Batman vs. Joker.

Originally posted by Mindship
Schrodinger's Superman is one tuff sonofabiatch to pin down.

Schrodinger's Superman is dead.

Wait . . .

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Wait... where does Superman fit in subjectively?
Just made my day, mate. Arigatou.

Depends who you're talking to.

Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't objective reality consensual subjectivity?

Quality is subjective. Case closed.

deja vu

and the Rolling Stones?

Originally posted by jaden101
Depends entirely on the thing being measured. Objectivity can be measured. A building can be built to a high standard using top grade materials and have top quality workmanship...This is objective...You might think it's an ugly as sin monstrosity and thus think the building is s**t...This is a subjective opinion.

An example of that, for me, is the Scottish Parliament building at Hollyrood...I personally think the building is horrible to look at but I know that the materials used were top drawer and the workmanship, for the most part, was as well.

Music can be the same...It can be excellent on a technical level in terms of how many skilled techniques the musician uses and how difficult it is to do...But if you don't like the genre or the song then you're going to think it's subjectively shit regardless of how skilled the musician is...An example of that for me is Yngwie Malmsteen. I know he ridiculously skilled on guitar but I hate his music.

You see those kinds of arguments especially when related to guitarists on youtube all the time...Most of the people utterly miss the point that music is about enjoyment and emotion more than it is about technical ability.

I'm sorry for such a late reply but I believe that this is an excellent explanation. For the most part, however, I believe that people don't WANT quality to be objective because of what they like and appreciate. Taste is subjective but quality is objective.

People seem to have such difficulty differentiating between taste and quality because they believe that, just because they like something, it's good, well-built, technically amazing, etc.

People should just like what they want, accept that quality is objective and shut the hell up. If I like something and it's awful, how can anyone really argue with my tastes? They're my damn tastes! I'm free to like what I want.

I just don't appreciate the type of people who argue that "quality is subjective" because they want everything they like to be "great."