Culture The Subjective Nature of Entertainment

[Terthna]

Recent discussions have reminded me that the one subject on which the post-modernists have it completely right (as I understand their position, at least) is, I believe, that of entertainment. There is no such thing as objectively good entertainment, nor is there such a thing as entertainment that is objectively bad. If you like something, then it's good; if you dislike something, then it's bad. At their core, any expressed opinion on any piece of entertainment can be boiled down to these two responses; save for those that elicit no response at all. Ultimately, it is only your emotional reaction to it that matters; not the entertainment itself.

When analyzing anything, people tend to think that they're being logical; but more often than not, they're just being emotional, especially when it comes to entertainment. All analysis is tied into the same innate instinct that all human being possess; the drive to discern patterns, regardless of whether or not they actually exist, and extrapolate from those patterns. If you like something on an emotion level, you feel the need to justify why you like it, to find a pattern that fits; the same goes for when you don't like something. It's when you try to apply those patterns to other works that you begin to like or dislike things on a "logical" level, which ultimately is nothing more than an illusion brought about by the same mental processes that for thousands of years convinced people bloodletting was a legitimate medical treatment. Your brain, in trying to make sense of the world around you, is lying to you so as to fill in the gaps. Emotions cannot be explained logically, at least not in simple terms, but we all still try to find patterns in how we feel, and we will find them; even if they have to be fabricated wholesale.

Then, when someone has found a pattern, they want to spread it everywhere they can so that the world can begin to make a little more sense; unfortunately for them, that pattern only exists when viewed from a particular perspective, and while there will always be at least some who share (or, for whatever reason, pretend to share) that perspective, it will never become the objective truth they believe it to be. This, unfortunately, leads to a great deal of conflict; because everyone believes that theirs is the one and only truth. Thus, whether you're criticizing or praising a book, or a movie, or anything else; you are treading on someone's soul regardless. My advice is to step softly.

In short? Everyone's opinion about entertainment is, objectively, wrong. Including mine.

 

[FriedCFour]

No, there is definitely some things that aren’t subjective. Like stories are about something. You can’t just make up what it is they are about. You’d be objectively wrong if you said that like, the Iliad is an allegory for the Holocaust. There you go, objectively wrong opinion on the entertainment. Or even things less absurd, like Cal Arts is a high quality style. Some critiques and opinions are absolutely better than others, more right than others. You couldn’t have critics if every opinion was just equal because it’s all equally subjective. Just try making that argument in any kind of class on literature and then writing a bunch of nonsense on the book you are reading.

because everyone believes that theirs is the one and only truth.

There is only one and only truth. That’s what makes it truth and what makes the term “my truth” so ridiculous.

Thus, whether you're criticizing or praising a book, or a movie, or anything else; you are treading on someone's soul regardless. My advice is to step softly.

This is a reflection of waaaaay to much investment into fiction and seems insanely unhealthy to call cartoons and shit part of your soul, and to tread lightly and not offend by insulting a dumb movie. If you take minor offense at insulting a movie you like it means you care too much. If you consider that to be your soul, the essence of who you are, then you have an extremely unhealthy relationship with the world around you and fiction is your reality.

 

[The Name of Love]

When analyzing anything, people tend to think that they're being logical; but more often than not, they're just being emotional, especially when it comes to entertainment. All analysis is tied into the same innate instinct that all human being possess; the drive to discern patterns, regardless of whether or not they actually exist, and extrapolate from those patterns. If you like something on an emotion level, you feel the need to justify why you like it, to find a pattern that fits; the same goes for when you don't like something. It's when you try to apply those patterns to other works that you begin to like or dislike things on a "logical" level, which ultimately is nothing more than an illusion brought about by the same mental processes that for thousands of years convinced people bloodletting was a legitimate medical treatment. Your brain, in trying to make sense of the world around you, is lying to you so as to fill in the gaps. Emotions cannot be explained logically, at least not in simple terms, but we all still try to find patterns in how we feel, and we will find them; even if they have to be fabricated wholesale.

And your fallacies are the Genetic Fallacy and the Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

That human beings rationalize the things they like doesn't mean that such reasoning is illogical per se. Reason is the method by which we understand things, including our own animal emotions and instincts. What makes something unreasonable or not is whether such reasoning is sound (as in, its premises are true or at least plausibly true and the logic is valid), not when you came by your reasoning.

For example, I'm a Roman Catholic because I was raised a Roman Catholic from a young age. However, I've come to justify my childhood faith by listening to critiques of Catholicism and finding them decidedly lacking while the critiques Catholics made of other religions are damning. To say that this reasoning was inherently faulty because I was raised Catholic commits the genetic fallacy. To say that I had an interest in Catholicism being true and I must have faulty reasoning because of that commits the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy because my circumstances or interests have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument.

It's one thing to suggest that human reasoning is limited and is strongly depends on one's own prejudices and instincts, such that we cannot trust "pure reason" to be the font of anything but irrationalism. But to say it's influenced by such things and limited in such a way isn't to say that logic itself is subjective. That's just silly.

In your philosophy, I detect the radical idealism of pseudo-Kantian thinking within your subjectivism. Right here:

Then, when someone has found a pattern, they want to spread it everywhere they can so that the world can begin to make a little more sense; unfortunately for them, that pattern only exists when viewed from a particular perspective, and while there will always be at least some who share (or, for whatever reason, pretend to share) that perspective, it will never become the objective truth they believe it to be.

Here, I take you to mean that the mind imposes these patterns onto reality and that said patterns aren't really there. But if the mind can construct new realities so thoroughly, then how can we know reality-in-itself? How do we know anything under such a conception of reality? No, the only way to avoid such nonsense is to accept the Peripatetic axiom as a given: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses." The products of the mind are the products of your experience of reality, the real reality.

 

[Abhorsen]

Recent discussions have reminded me that the one subject on which the post-modernists have it completely right (as I understand their position, at least) is, I believe, that of entertainment. There is no such thing as objectively good entertainment, nor is there such a thing as entertainment that is objectively bad. If you like something, then it's good; if you dislike something, then it's bad. At their core, any expressed opinion on any piece of entertainment can be boiled down to these two responses; save for those that elicit no response at all. Ultimately, it is only your emotional reaction to it that matters; not the entertainment itself.

When analyzing anything, people tend to think that they're being logical; but more often than not, they're just being emotional, especially when it comes to entertainment. All analysis is tied into the same innate instinct that all human being possess; the drive to discern patterns, regardless of whether or not they actually exist, and extrapolate from those patterns. If you like something on an emotion level, you feel the need to justify why you like it, to find a pattern that fits; the same goes for when you don't like something. It's when you try to apply those patterns to other works that you begin to like or dislike things on a "logical" level, which ultimately is nothing more than an illusion brought about by the same mental processes that for thousands of years convinced people bloodletting was a legitimate medical treatment. Your brain, in trying to make sense of the world around you, is lying to you so as to fill in the gaps. Emotions cannot be explained logically, at least not in simple terms, but we all still try to find patterns in how we feel, and we will find them; even if they have to be fabricated wholesale.

Then, when someone has found a pattern, they want to spread it everywhere they can so that the world can begin to make a little more sense; unfortunately for them, that pattern only exists when viewed from a particular perspective, and while there will always be at least some who share (or, for whatever reason, pretend to share) that perspective, it will never become the objective truth they believe it to be. This, unfortunately, leads to a great deal of conflict; because everyone believes that theirs is the one and only truth. Thus, whether you're criticizing or praising a book, or a movie, or anything else; you are treading on someone's soul regardless. My advice is to step softly.

In short? Everyone's opinion about entertainment is, objectively, wrong. Including mine.

I would actually argue a mixture. For example, there are some books that I have very fond memories of reading, like Pride and Prejudice. I probably like this book more than average. In contrast, someone who was assigned it for school might like it less.

And honestly, if we integrate over everyone's subjective value of a book (maybe with a time adjustment), we get a pretty good result, I would say. This would make the Bible as probably the best book, while Twilight would be pretty crap. I don't think this is a bad way of doing it.

We can objectively measure this by looking at a book's price, i.e. what an average person would pay to read it (though it isn't a perfect measure by any means, as the signal is obfuscated by other things.). If it has bad writing, that would be priced in.

 

[The Name of Love]

I would actually argue a mixture. For example, there are some books that I have very fond memories of reading, like Pride and Prejudice. I probably like this book more than average. In contrast, someone who was assigned it for school might like it less.

And honestly, if we integrate over everyone's subjective value of a book (maybe with a time adjustment), we get a pretty good result, I would say. This would make the Bible as probably the best book, while Twilight would be pretty crap. I don't think this is a bad way of doing it.

We can objectively measure this by looking at a book's price, i.e. what an average person would pay to read it (though it isn't a perfect measure by any means, as the signal is obfuscated by other things.). If it has bad writing, that would be priced in.

Why should we assume that the market is the determiner of objective value? The Austrians proved that economic value is, at its core, subjective.

 

[Abhorsen]

Why should we assume that the market is the determiner of objective value? The Austrians proved that economic value is, at its core, subjective.

Economic value to a particular person is subjective. A price itself is objective (just look at the tag). If the item sells at that price, that would be a rough survey of the value people place on it. Though this is by no means perfect, as it also matters how much is sold and there are standardized prices. Maybe for books, the amount that sold is a better indicator than the price. But say 40k people bought a book at $20. Those 40k people all valued the book at least higher than $20. It's not a perfect estimate by any means, but it's simple and also objective.

 

[Terthna]

No, there is definitely some things that aren’t subjective. Like stories are about something. You can’t just make up what it is they are about. You’d be objectively wrong if you said that like, the Iliad is an allegory for the Holocaust. There you go, objectively wrong opinion on the entertainment. Or even things less absurd, like Cal Arts is a high quality style. Some critiques and opinions are absolutely better than others, more right than others. You couldn’t have critics if every opinion was just equal because it’s all equally subjective. Just try making that argument in any kind of class on literature and then writing a bunch of nonsense on the book you are reading.

You seem to have difficulty differentiating opinion from fact; don't worry, it happens to most people, I've found. Simply put, there's a difference between trying to argue whether or not a cartoon is "good", and whether or not a cartoon is a banana. Also the very idea that "Some critiques and opinions are absolutely better than others, more right than others" is itself a paradoxical one, because you define which ones are by whether or not they match yours.

There is only one and only truth. That’s what makes it truth and what makes the term “my truth” so ridiculous.

Pineapple is the best pizza topping; that is my "truth". Again, opinions are not facts; 2+2 will always equal 4, and everyone can agree that's true, but you'll never get everyone to agree on which is the best movie (it's Willow by the way; in case you were wondering), or even on which ones are any good.

This is a reflection of waaaaay to much investment into fiction and seems insanely unhealthy to call cartoons and shit part of your soul, and to tread lightly and not offend by insulting a dumb movie. If you take minor offense at insulting a movie you like it means you care too much. If you consider that to be your soul, the essence of who you are, then you have an extremely unhealthy relationship with the world around you and fiction is your reality.

Yes it is, and it does; but that's part of what it means to be human. Obsessing over pointless crap. It's your choice of course whether or not to respect someone else's opinion; but don't expect people to respect yours if you chose not to respect theirs.

And your fallacies are the Genetic Fallacy and the Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

That human beings rationalize the things they like doesn't mean that such reasoning is illogical per se. Reason is the method by which we understand things, including our own animal emotions and instincts. What makes something unreasonable or not is whether such reasoning is sound (as in, its premises are true or at least plausibly true and the logic is valid), not when you came by your reasoning.

For example, I'm a Roman Catholic because I was raised a Roman Catholic from a young age. However, I've come to justify my childhood faith by listening to critiques of Catholicism and finding them decidedly lacking while the critiques Catholics made of other religions are damning. To say that this reasoning was inherently faulty because I was raised Catholic commits the genetic fallacy. To say that I had an interest in Catholicism being true and I must have faulty reasoning because of that commits the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy because my circumstances or interests have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument.

It's one thing to suggest that human reasoning is limited and is strongly depends on one's own prejudices and instincts, such that we cannot trust "pure reason" to be the font of anything but irrationalism. But to say it's influenced by such things and limited in such a way isn't to say that logic itself is subjective. That's just silly.

In your philosophy, I detect the radical idealism of pseudo-Kantian thinking within your subjectivism. Right here:


Here, I take you to mean that the mind imposes these patterns onto reality and that said patterns aren't really there. But if the mind can construct new realities so thoroughly, then how can we know reality-in-itself? How do we know anything under such a conception of reality? No, the only way to avoid such nonsense is to accept the Peripatetic axiom as a given: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses." The products of the mind are the products of your experience of reality, the real reality.

First of all, let's not bring religion into this discussion; it would quickly derail things. That said, I want you to do something else for me; using your ability to reason, I want you to explain to me which color is the best. Blue, orange, teal; I don't care which one, tell me why it's better than every other color.

I would actually argue a mixture. For example, there are some books that I have very fond memories of reading, like Pride and Prejudice. I probably like this book more than average. In contrast, someone who was assigned it for school might like it less.

And honestly, if we integrate over everyone's subjective value of a book (maybe with a time adjustment), we get a pretty good result, I would say. This would make the Bible as probably the best book, while Twilight would be pretty crap. I don't think this is a bad way of doing it.

We can objectively measure this by looking at a book's price, i.e. what an average person would pay to read it (though it isn't a perfect measure by any means, as the signal is obfuscated by other things.). If it has bad writing, that would be priced in.

Popularity and sales figures have nothing to do with whether or not a book is any good. Most people who own a Bible will never read it.

 

[Abhorsen]

Popularity and sales figures have nothing to do with whether or not a book is any good. Most people who own a Bible will never read it.

I disagree with this. If we are accepting a subjective definition of value, then sales figures tell us how many people though the book would be worth X dollars. It's not the best estimate, but it's a pretty good one.

 

[The Name of Love]

Economic value to a particular person is subjective. A price itself is objective (just look at the tag). If the item sells at that price, that would be a rough survey of the value people place on it. Though this is by no means perfect, as it also matters how much is sold and there are standardized prices. Maybe for books, the amount that sold is a better indicator than the price. But say 40k people bought a book at $20. Those 40k people all valued the book at least higher than $20. It's not a perfect estimate by any means, but it's simple and also objective.

How is it objective? The only objective fact about it is that the market as an institution values it at that price. It's not inherent to the worth of the object in itself.

First of all, let's not bring religion into this discussion; it would quickly derail things.

I wasn't bringing religion into this. I was using it as an example of how your thinking was fallacious. If I were to conclude that your position was false because you were raised believing that position by your parents or because you had some self-interested motive in believing it, I would be no less fallacious.

That said, I want you to do something else for me; using your ability to reason, I want you to explain to me which color is the best. Blue, orange, teal; I don't care which one, tell me why it's better than every other color.

There's no "best color." There's just color.

Now, show me the logical argument that, because there's no objectively "best color," there are no objective standards for anything else.

 

[FriedCFour]

You seem to have difficulty differentiating opinion from fact; don't worry, it happens to most people, I've found. Simply put, there's a difference between trying to argue whether or not a cartoon is "good", and whether or not a cartoon is a banana. Also the very idea that "Some critiques and opinions are absolutely better than others, more right than others" is itself a paradoxical one, because you define which ones are by whether or not they match yours.

No to all of that. I don’t define which ones are better whether or not they match mine. Someone can have a different take than me. It’s a good take depending on how it uses reason or logic or analysis of a story to come to a conclusion. It’s not about how it matches mine at all. Like take the Room 237 documentary. All the different critiques are different than my own opinion, which is that Kubrick made The Shining to include all sorts of random symbolism for shits and giggles. There are like 5 different opinions on why he made it in the film that are not what I said. All of these are also way more in depth and way better argued. But there is also a truth to what The Shining is actually about that exists. I don’t know if any of us are correct but there is an actual answer there.

Pineapple is the best pizza topping; that is my "truth". Again, opinions are not facts; 2+2 will always equal 4, and everyone can agree that's true, but you'll never get everyone to agree on which is the best movie (it's Willow by the way; in case you were wondering), or even on which ones are any good.

You’ll never get everyone to agree that pedophilia is evil. That doesn’t mean the immorality of raping children is subjective. Disagreement and argument doesn’t mean there now exists no truth.

Yes it is, and it does; but that's part of what it means to be human. Obsessing over pointless crap. It's your choice of course whether or not to respect someone else's opinion; but don't expect people to respect yours if you chose not to respect theirs.

No, believing that cartoons make up your soul is not what it means to be human. That’s what it means to be deeply removed from what actually matters in life and to have an incredibly unhealthy obsession and lack of real life experience.

 

[Terthna]

I disagree with this. If we are accepting a subjective definition of value, then sales figures tell us how many people though the book would be worth X dollars. It's not the best estimate, but it's a pretty good one.

So explain to me then how Fifty Shades of Grey can be considered a better book than The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Grapes of Wrath, and The Cat in the Hat, all of which sold less.

 

[S'task]

So explain to me then how Fifty Shades of Grey can be considered a better book than The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Grapes of Wrath, and The Cat in the Hat, all of which sold less.

Hmm? That's easy. Because they're written word documents they are using the written English language to communicate, and written English has RULES for structure, grammar, and spelling. A written work with fewer grammatical errors, better linguistic structure, and better use of English structure and grammar is thus a better work.

There is skill in wordsmithing, and just as you can see skill with any craft creating a superior product, you can see it in the written language.

Also, one could point to the longevity of the popularity of the works you wish to compare it against. We still read and talk about those words since 1979, 1939, and 1957, respectfully. I have my doubts about Fifty Shades still being commonly read and remembered by 2031 (twenty years after publication), to say nothing of 2052, 2074, or in 2092. Though we won't know for sure if that's the case until those years.

 

[Lanmandragon]

No, there is definitely some things that aren’t subjective. Like stories are about something. You can’t just make up what it is they are about. You’d be objectively wrong if you said that like, the Iliad is an allegory for the Holocaust. There you go, objectively wrong opinion on the entertainment. Or even things less absurd, like Cal Arts is a high quality style. Some critiques and opinions are absolutely better than others, more right than others. You couldn’t have critics if every opinion was just equal because it’s all equally subjective. Just try making that argument in any kind of class on literature and then writing a bunch of nonsense on the book you are reading.


There is only one and only truth. That’s what makes it truth and what makes the term “my truth” so ridiculous.


This is a reflection of waaaaay to much investment into fiction and seems insanely unhealthy to call cartoons and shit part of your soul, and to tread lightly and not offend by insulting a dumb movie. If you take minor offense at insulting a movie you like it means you care too much. If you consider that to be your soul, the essence of who you are, then you have an extremely unhealthy relationship with the world around you and fiction is your reality.

Why are "critics" views more valuable then anyone else's? As opposed to the reality of them being pretentious snobs. Who regualry talk up movies that most people hate. Based on some art teacher's opinion. Basically I'm saying "critc" isn't a legitimate job nor are they legitimate subject matter experts.

 

[The Name of Love]

This conversation reminds me of the words of Don Colacho: "'Taste is relative' is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste."

 

[Lanmandragon]

This conversation reminds me of the words of Don Colacho: "'Taste is relative' is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste."

Define bad taste based on objective facts then go ahead. Hell prove with objective facts that say Hamlet is good. Not to mention things like "piss Christ" are critically accalimed. So clearly that's objectively good article because critics said so right?

 

[Abhorsen]

So explain to me then how Fifty Shades of Grey can be considered a better book than The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Grapes of Wrath, and The Cat in the Hat, all of which sold less.

First, it's by no means a perfect measure, as I noted repeatedly. A crucial weakness of the measure is that it doesn't differentiate people hating the book versus people just not caring versus people not hearing of it. It also needs to be adjusted for the time period in which it was sold, both in price and quantity sold. But does it measure the subjective value? I'd say yes. 125 million people bought Fifty Shades. That's a lot of people who enjoyed it. And despite its flaws, it clearly captured a point that people like reading 'kinky' stuff, and there is a market for bowderlized kink. Is it a good piece of literature, IMO? No. Is it good kink fic, IMO? Definitely not. But 125 Million people disagree with me.

How is it objective? The only objective fact about it is that the market as an institution values it at that price. It's not inherent to the worth of the object in itself.

That's what objective means: two different people looking at it will come to the same conclusion. In this case, both can look at the price tag and will come to the same conclusion. That makes it an objective measure of value. It might not be measuring what you want it to, but it is definitely objective.

What I'm using it for, though, is an objective estimate for integrating over people's subjective value of a good. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good and definitely objective.

 

[Terthna]

There's no "best color." There's just color.

That's where you're wrong; blue is clearly the best color. It's the color of water, and the sky, and blueberries, and hyperlinks, and this forum; how could it not be the best color? Psychological studies even show that it inspires feelings of calmness or serenity, and people in blue-colored rooms have been shown to be more productive.

Now, show me the logical argument that, because there's no objectively "best color," there are no objective standards for anything else.

I refuse; because you're trying to argue against a strawman. At no point did I say there were no objective standards for anything; that's on you.

You’ll never get everyone to agree that pedophilia is evil. That doesn’t mean the immorality of raping children is subjective. Disagreement and argument doesn’t mean there now exists no truth.

Seriously, what the hell is with you and The Name of Love and trying to argue against something I never said? I'm talking about entertainment here; not child rape.

No, believing that cartoons make up your soul is not what it means to be human. That’s what it means to be deeply removed from what actually matters in life and to have an incredibly unhealthy obsession and lack of real life experience.

You're taking this whole "soul" thing far more seriously than I'd intended; here, let me rephrase it for you. If you want people to respect you and your opinions, show some tact.

Hmm? That's easy. Because they're written word documents they are using the written English language to communicate, and written English has RULES for structure, grammar, and spelling. A written work with fewer grammatical errors, better linguistic structure, and better use of English structure and grammar is thus a better work.

There is skill in wordsmithing, and just as you can see skill with any craft creating a superior product, you can see it in the written language.

Also, one could point to the longevity of the popularity of the works you wish to compare it against. We still read and talk about those words since 1979, 1939, and 1957, respectfully. I have my doubts about Fifty Shades still being commonly read and remembered by 2031 (twenty years after publication), to say nothing of 2052, 2074, or in 2092. Though we won't know for sure if that's the case until those years.

True; but skill can, and often does, have little to do with whether or not someone actually likes a work.

 

[The Name of Love]

Define bad taste based on objective facts then go ahead. Hell prove with objective facts that say Hamlet is good. Not to mention things like "piss Christ" are critically accalimed. So clearly that's objectively good article because critics said so right?

Lanmandragon, I cannot read your terrible grammar. Could you please rewrite what you said so that I could rebut you properly?

That's what objective means: two different people looking at it will come to the same conclusion. In this case, both can look at the price tag and will come to the same conclusion. That makes it an objective measure of value. It might not be measuring what you want it to, but it is definitely objective.

What I'm using it for, though, is an objective estimate for integrating over people's subjective value of a good. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good and definitely objective.

Objective doesn't mean inter-subjective. Objective truth is true in itself, independent of the opinions of anyone. We find out the objective nature of things through experience. Consensus is a useful tool, but it isn't necessary to finding objective truth, and it's sometimes wrong.

That's where you're wrong; blue is clearly the best color. It's the color of water, and the sky, and blueberries, and hyperlinks, and this forum; how could it not be the best color? Psychological studies even show that it inspires feelings of calmness or serenity, and people in blue-colored rooms have been shown to be more productive.

If you're defining "best" according to "pleasing to you," then sure, blue is the "best." But if you define "best" according to reaching perfection, then each color, just like each piece of art and indeed every thing in creation, has a standard of "best" according to its kind.

I refuse; because you're trying to argue against a strawman. At no point did I say there were no objective standards for anything; that's on you.

What did you say then?

 

[Lanmandragon]

Lanmandragon, I cannot read your terrible grammar. Could you please rewrite what you said so that I could rebut you properly?


Objective doesn't mean inter-subjective. Objective truth is true in itself, independent of the opinions of anyone. We find out the objective nature of things through experience. Consensus is a useful tool, but it isn't necessary to finding objective truth, and it's sometimes wrong.


If you're defining "best" according to "pleasing to you," then sure, blue is the "best." But if you define "best" according to reaching perfection, then each color, just like each piece of art and indeed every thing in creation, has a standard of "best" according to its kind.


What did you say then?

1. Define bad taste in objective terms.
2. Prove that Hamlet is good using objective facts not opionons.

 

[Abhorsen]

Objective doesn't mean inter-subjective. Objective truth is true in itself, independent of the opinions of anyone. We find out the objective nature of things through experience. Consensus is a useful tool, but it isn't necessary to finding objective truth, and it's sometimes wrong.

But I'm not saying consensus = objectivitiy. I'm saying that the number on a price tag, and how much of the item was sold, are objective facts. Together, they create an objective measure of quality, i.e. one that can be calculated without subjectivity.

Now the measure itself is not perfect, but it is objective. The measure is also an objective estimate of the subjective measure that I propose, namely the integral of people's subjective values of the object.