Subjectivity vs Objectivity

[undead]

I got to thinking about things that are subjective like beauty, what sounds good or bad musically, whether an art piece is appealing or not, whether someone is right or wrong and how dynamic subjectivity as a whole is.

While objectives are exact, matters of fact, very straight forward, points. Nothing wavering about them.

I don't even know if there's much to talk about there, it just struck me as interesting for the moment. If I think about it... someone else probably does, right?



Btw, I don't care if anyone here likes or dislikes Three Days Grace... anyone who DOES like them, but doesn't see my obvious humor there isn't gonna bring much to the table here anyway. And if you don't like em... good for agreeing with me. That makes you right.

 

[Miss_vanilla]

The differences between the two are interesting but more importantly, subjectivity fascinates me. What makes a photo, painting or person attractive to one person but not another?

I often have a sort of offbeat perspective regarding what's attractive in a person and photography, for example. I love imperfections; those things which draw your eye but make the person or image appealing. I'm not necessarily talking about anything in particular, just something which sets a photo or face apart from something more generic.

I guess this goes to 'taste' as well. What's considered good taste -v- bad taste when you're talking about art or music, say. I sometimes comment that something's tacky or in bad taste but then what gives me the right to say that really?

 

[undead]

^ Exactly what I'm looking for in this.

Sometimes people say "how the fuck can you NOT like this???" and I just think... "that's a pretty damn presumptuous thing to say." Like... "How can you NOT like Three Days Grace???" It confuses me.

Though there are times I'll hear something that I find so incredible that I'll think "how can anyone NOT like this???" (always tongue in cheek of course!) And next thing you know... I'm pretentious.

People actually get into arguments over being subjectively different. You can't even be subjectively right or wrong.

I HATE Three Days Grace, but I know that if someone likes them, it doesn't make them WRONG... stupid maybe, but not wrong.

 

[my worst enemy]

Some people I know have the ability to talk me into liking a certain song during listening. Through the years I believe I have developed this skill as well. So if i really like something and put in an effort I can make you like it too. Its awsome cause then we can share the aesthetic experience

 

[malakaix]

People actually get into arguments over being subjectively different. You can't even be subjectively right or wrong.

It's amusing to watch sometimes, and you just wonder how neither of them are able to realize there going around in circles.

I don't like the term 'pretentious' either, it seems like a defensive term people use when they don't understand someone's appreciation for something. I think its wonderful that peoples views of everything vary so widely.. it's what makes everything so damn interesting. It's funny that most people want others to see everything exactly as they do; but if this were to actually happen.. how boring life would be.

 

[alasdairm]

Sometimes people say "how the fuck can you NOT like this???" and I just think... "that's a pretty damn presumptuous thing to say." Like... "How can you NOT like Three Days Grace???" It confuses me.

Though there are times I'll hear something that I find so incredible that I'll think "how can anyone NOT like this???" (always tongue in cheek of course!) And next thing you know... I'm pretentious.

People actually get into arguments over being subjectively different. You can't even be subjectively right or wrong.

I HATE Three Days Grace, but I know that if someone likes them, it doesn't make them WRONG... stupid maybe, but not wrong.

you should go spend some time in the music or f&t forums at bluelight

i've seen - been involved in - discussions in those forums where people argue that a movie or piece of music can be objectively 'bad'. think about that...

in the cases you describe above, you'll often hear someone say "i just don't understand how you can't like..." or "i can't see how you would enjoy...". for me, those statements are 100% accurate because the entire point of the statement is conveyed by the "i just don't understand" and "i can't see" bit.

as with so many things, those statements say so much more about the subject than they do about the object...

alasdair

 

[Max Power]

IMO, this thread should be re-titled 'Aesthetics' and moved to P&S. But I'll leave it here for the time being.

 

[Care]

I do my best to be fair with my opinions about things. I try to consider both sides of any argument, so that my subjective side is as fair as possible. So when I am expressing my opinion about things (art, politics, life in general) I can be as convincing as possible.

Some people do not have the ability to decipher their opinion from fact, and it can be very frustrating to have any type of meaningful conversation with them.

Im in philosophy class right now that deals with pretty much this exact issue. The competing ideas come from Plato(everything is objective, and the images of things that pop into out head when we hear a word and identify it are imperfect representations of what the word actually means) and Hobbes (everything is subjective, the different images that pop into our collective heads when we hear a word are what the word really means, and the real world offers imperfect examples).

For example if I were to say the word "tree", a person would be able to envision a picture of a tree in their mind. It might not be exactly like any tree that actually exists in the real world, but it is nevertheless an image of a tree. According to Hobbes that image is what "tree" actually means, and according to Plato it is an imperfect representation of what a tree is.

The widely accepted version in the post-religious world we live in today is Hobbes. If the true meaning of words is some idealized version of things then when you apply this principal to religion, the only people that can truly claim to know the nature of God are the clergy. This gave the church immense power in pre-reformation Europe. It wasn't until Hobbes radical ideas about subjectivity, and Martin Luther's grievances splintered the Catholic Church, that we saw people thinking in creative and subjective ways.

Its crazy to think about how far humanity has come since the days of medieval thought, and what we take for granted these days, and yet we still have oh so far to go.

This post ended up being a lot longer than I originally anticipated......

 

[MyFinalRest]

Quite often though, there are limits to subjectivity. On some level, we are all the same type of creature who live in the same world, who experience things much more similarly than differently, and these things place limits on subjectivity. Although people try hard to exceed these limits with bizarre music, art, and other "tastes," they aren't really getting too far with things the further out they go.

Even if things are popular now, if they go against some fundamental objective cosmic reality and sensibility (note that the word "sense" as in touch, taste, feel, sight, and sound is the root of this word) they will one day be forgotten. There is a reason certain concepts stand the test of time, and it goes beyond subjective approval.

 

[Perpetual Indulgence]

I use both in my work day. Objective measures are important when trying to get information from a one year old on an eye exam. Subjective measures are nice as they get older but not really essential for medical treatment. I find that the subjective response especially when testing vision is a great tool to demonstrate to the parent that their child cannot see.

 

[ebola?]

So...calling things either "subjective" or "objective" is one of my pet peeves. Instead, we should think of the various ways in which participants act as subjects when they take on aspects of reality as objects. Put otherwise, we should ask how various interactions confer qualities to parts of themselves as subjective or objective.
...
I would say that a good starting point in the realm of aesthetics is Bourdieu, as he analyzes how objective social conditions lead participants to take on varied dispositions toward acting as distinct types of subjects (in the process, reconstructing these objective conditions).

ebola

 

[L2R]

^i object! forget bore-oh!

in philosophy of mind, semblances of this distinction is handy in defining intentional thoughts, which is the basis for exploring the notion of free-will.