Culture The Subjective Nature of Entertainment

[Lanmandragon]

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.

This measure would make things like "twilight" masterpieces based on sales.

 

[Abhorsen]

This measure would make things like "twilight" masterpieces based on sales.

It's not great, but as a rule of thumb, it's honestly pretty good. For every exception like Twilight, there are numerous times it works well. Pointing out exceptions to a rule I say is a general guideline isn't the greatest argument.

 

[Lanmandragon]

It's not great, but as a rule of thumb, it's honestly pretty good. For every exception like Twilight, there are numerous times it works well. Pointing out exceptions to a rule I say is a general guideline isn't the greatest argument.

It is when your talking bout objective facts. Any exception existing at all is proof that it's not objective fact.

 

[FriedCFour]

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.

I’m saying the argument you make for subjectivity here is the same you can make for subjectivity elsewhere. You are saying “one person thinks this, one person thinks that, how can we ever declare one right because they don’t agree?” I’m saying that’s a poor argument, one of them can be right and one wrong.

 

[The Name of Love]

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

Something is bad when it doesn't fulfill its function. For example, if I say I have bad eyesight, we all know that means that my eyes aren't good at fulfilling their purpose (which is seeing). Goodness and badness are analogical properties, meaning that what is good for eyes isn't going to be what's good for (say) taste.

Now, the purpose of taste (at least in the context of aesthetics) is to recognize the beauty of the thing. Beauty, like goodness, is analogical, and different things have different standards of beauty. But beauty, in all its forms, concerns the perfection of the thing in itself. So a person with bad tastes will either see objectively beautiful things as ugly, see objectively ugly things as beautiful, or both.

Now, the purpose of the story is to convince you of a conditional proposition. Conditional propositions take the form of "if X, then Y." For example, Star Wars would try to convince you "If there was such a galaxy far, far away, then this would be what would happen in it." A good story tries to convince you of some truth. The extent to which it succeeds or fails at doing so determines whether it's a good story.

Hamlet is a good story because it 1) showcases the author's in-depth understanding of human psychology, making the world much more believable by populating it with varied and understandable characters and 2) sweeps the reader up in a whirlwind of emotions with its gripping revenge plot. Revenge plots appeal to us on a primal level, so this makes convincing the reader of its conditional proposition that much easier. On top of that, it's an excellent work of art. In terms of its intellectual sophistication and of its prose, Hamlet is objectively beautiful because it represents the perfection of intellect.

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.

The price on the tag tells you, objectively, how much the market values the object. Such valuation is ultimately subjective at the bottom level.

In contrast, the actual worth of the object is determined by other, more objective factors, of which price only tangentially captures. To conflate moral worth with economic worth is the height of folly.

 

[Abhorsen]

It is when your talking bout objective facts. Any exception existing at all is proof that it's not objective fact.

No, I'm saying it's an objective estimate, i.e. an estimate that different people with different opinions will come to the same value for. I'm not claiming the estimate is always correct but that it is generally close, allowing for outliers (estimate), and that different people looking at the same data will calculate the same value (objectivity).

The price on the tag tells you, objectively, how much the market values the object. Such valuation is ultimately subjective at the bottom level.

The price is objective. I'm glad we agree on this. So if you agree that the amount of books sold is an objective measure, then the measure itself is objective.

As for the underlying thing being subjective, have you read my posts? That's what I've been saying. This is an objective estimate of a subjective result.

In contrast, the actual worth of the object is determined by other, more objective factors, of which price only tangentially captures. To conflate moral worth with economic worth is the height of folly.

... I never said anything about moral worth? And it seems completely irrelevant here?

 

[The Name of Love]

The price is objective. I'm glad we agree on this. So if you agree that the amount of books sold is an objective measure, then the measure itself is objective.

As for the underlying thing being subjective, have you read my posts? That's what I've been saying. This is an objective estimate of a subjective result.
... I never said anything about moral worth? And it seems completely irrelevant here?

If you agree with me on all that, then will you concede that the market value isn't an indicator of anything but the economic value of an object and therefore has nothing to do with the actual quality of it per se?

 

[Abhorsen]

If you agree with me on all that, then will you concede that the market value isn't an indicator of anything but the economic value of an object and therefore has nothing to do with the actual quality of it per se?

No, the price definitely tells a story. It tells us how other people subjectively value it. If 40k people buy a certain book for $20, that means 40k people valued the given book at >= $20. And popularity of a book is definitely positively correlated with quality of a book, i.e. it's a good estimate.

 

[Deleted member 88]

If we are defining goodness as being reflective of beauty, then how do we define beauty?

What is beautiful? Should be emotion? Or majesty? Or tug at one's heart.

There are works I find to be beautiful other people don't appreciate.

 

[The Name of Love]

No, the price definitely tells a story. It tells us how other people subjectively value it. If 40k people buy a certain book for $20, that means 40k people valued the given book at >= $20. And popularity of a book is definitely positively correlated with quality of a book, i.e. it's a good estimate.

First, you can't tell the full story from the price. Part of the genius of prices on the free market is that you don't need all the information that goes into them to make the decision on whether or not to purchase something. Prices tell you, at most, the intersection of supply and demand. Unless you know one or the other along with the price, you can't know the full story.

Second, there isn't any connection between quality and popularity. Something that is objectively good can be unpopular or obscure, and something that is objectively bad can be very popular. It all depends on the tastes of the people in question. It's true that good works can become popular because of how good they are, but they can also become popular because they satisfy some selfish urge.

 

[Abhorsen]

First, you can't tell the full story from the price. Part of the genius of prices on the free market is that you don't need all the information that goes into them to make the decision on whether or not to purchase something. Prices tell you, at most, the intersection of supply and demand. Unless you know one or the other along with the price, you can't know the full story.

I never claimed a full story. I just said that it tells a story. The story is 'X number of people bought Y at Z price'. It informs us about how popular the work was.

Second, there isn't any connection between quality and popularity. Something that is objectively good can be unpopular or obscure, and something that is objectively bad can be very popular. It all depends on the tastes of the people in question. It's true that good works can become popular because of how good they are, but they can also become popular because they satisfy some selfish urge.

You see, you assume works of art have objective value, and that's just not true. For a work of art to be objectively good, then the piece would have to be considered good independent of who observes it. I, personally, was completely underwhelmed by the Mona Lisa, and don't get why people like that instead of a ton of other random paintings of ladies. In contrast, The Anatomy Lesson was really cool. So value is subjective.

 

[The Name of Love]

You see, you assume works of art have objective value, and that's just not true. For a work of art to be objectively good, then the piece would have to be considered good independent of who observes it. I, personally, was completely underwhelmed by the Mona Lisa, and don't get why people like that instead of a ton of other random paintings of ladies. In contrast, The Anatomy Lesson was really cool. So value is subjective.

For an action to be objectively good, then the act would have to be considered good independent of who judges it. You and I think pederasty is evil. NAMBLA, meanwhile, sees nothing wrong with it. Therefore, moral values are subjective.

For a scientific fact to objectively true, then the fact would have to be considered true independent of who confirms it. You believe in evolution. Ken Ham doesn't. Therefore, scientific facts are subjective.

I could go on, but I think you see why your argument is faulty.

 

[Abhorsen]

For an action to be objectively good, then the act would have to be considered good independent of who judges it. You and I think pederasty is evil. NAMBLA, meanwhile, sees nothing wrong with it. Therefore, moral values are subjective.

For a scientific fact to objectively true, then the fact would have to be considered true independent of who confirms it. You believe in evolution. Ken Ham doesn't. Therefore, scientific facts are subjective.

I could go on, but I think you see why your argument is faulty.

Fair point, I'll clarify. The value of art is in how it affects people, it doesn't really have much intrinsic value (a book can be burned for fuel, so there is some, but you get the point). A masterpiece that no one sees has no value. But an okay book that touched someone deeply could have great value to that person. So when I stated that I didn't value the Mona Lisa, this is the subjective value of how the Mona Lisa affects me.

I would put forward that art (in a very general sense of the word, from Shakespeare to Harlequin Romances to Pepe Memes) is somewhat unusual in this manner, in that nearly all of the value comes from how it affects the person(s) who experiences it.

In contrast, science and morality don't derive their value from people experiencing them, but are valuable in themselves. This is rare, and allows for them to escape human subjectivity and become objective.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Something is bad when it doesn't fulfill its function. For example, if I say I have bad eyesight, we all know that means that my eyes aren't good at fulfilling their purpose (which is seeing). Goodness and badness are analogical properties, meaning that what is good for eyes isn't going to be what's good for (say) taste.

Now, the purpose of taste (at least in the context of aesthetics) is to recognize the beauty of the thing. Beauty, like goodness, is analogical, and different things have different standards of beauty. But beauty, in all its forms, concerns the perfection of the thing in itself. So a person with bad tastes will either see objectively beautiful things as ugly, see objectively ugly things as beautiful, or both.

Now, the purpose of the story is to convince you of a conditional proposition. Conditional propositions take the form of "if X, then Y." For example, Star Wars would try to convince you "If there was such a galaxy far, far away, then this would be what would happen in it." A good story tries to convince you of some truth. The extent to which it succeeds or fails at doing so determines whether it's a good story.

Hamlet is a good story because it 1) showcases the author's in-depth understanding of human psychology, making the world much more believable by populating it with varied and understandable characters and 2) sweeps the reader up in a whirlwind of emotions with its gripping revenge plot. Revenge plots appeal to us on a primal level, so this makes convincing the reader of its conditional proposition that much easier. On top of that, it's an excellent work of art. In terms of its intellectual sophistication and of its prose, Hamlet is objectively beautiful because it represents the perfection of intellect.


The price on the tag tells you, objectively, how much the market values the object. Such valuation is ultimately subjective at the bottom level.

In contrast, the actual worth of the object is determined by other, more objective factors, of which price only tangentially captures. To conflate moral worth with economic worth is the height of folly.

See to me it's all about entertainment. So we're starting from two different starting points. So there's really no discussion to be had here. So I'll bow out.

 

[The Name of Love]

Fair point, I'll clarify. The value of art is in how it affects people, it doesn't really have much intrinsic value (a book can be burned for fuel, so there is some, but you get the point). A masterpiece that no one sees has no value. But an okay book that touched someone deeply could have great value to that person. So when I stated that I didn't value the Mona Lisa, this is the subjective value of how the Mona Lisa affects me.

I would put forward that art (in a very general sense of the word, from Shakespeare to Harlequin Romances to Pepe Memes) is somewhat unusual in this manner, in that nearly all of the value comes from how it affects the person(s) who experiences it.

In contrast, science and morality don't derive their value from people experiencing them, but are valuable in themselves. This is rare, and allows for them to escape human subjectivity and become objective.

Ah, but see, to Scholastics such as I, truth, goodness, and beauty are fundamentally the same thing approached in different ways. I don’t see how you can say one of the three are ”subjective” and the others aren’t. They are all basically analogous to each other.

When you say art has no intrinsic value, you are just making an assertion. If there wasn’t some thing about the art that moved us, we would not be moved. Beauty does have intrinsic value, in the same way truth does.

See to me it's all about entertainment. So we're starting from two different starting points. So there's really no discussion to be had here. So I'll bow out.

Bow out all you want. But keep in mind that entertainment, art, and stories are all different things.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Ah, but see, to Scholastics such as I, truth, goodness, and beauty are fundamentally the same thing approached in different ways. I don’t see how you can say one of the three are ”subjective” and the others aren’t. They are all basically analogous to each other.

When you say art has no intrinsic value, you are just making an assertion. If there wasn’t some thing about the art that moved us, we would not be moved. Beauty does have intrinsic value, in the same way truth does.


Bow out all you want. But keep in mind that entertainment, art, and stories are all different things.

Maybe to you they are different things. To me though art and stories are just subsets of entertainment. So I either like it or I don't no need to go any deeper at all. The views of others are entierly irrelevant except as entertainment.

 

[The Name of Love]

Maybe to you they are different things. To me though art and stories are just subsets of entertainment. So I either like it or I don't no need to go any deeper at all. The views of others are entierly irrelevant except as entertainment.

But the purposes of art and entertainment are different. Art expresses beauty. Entertainment amuses an audience. There can be things that are both entertainment and art, but you can have one without the other.

 

[Abhorsen]

Ah, but see, to Scholastics such as I, truth, goodness, and beauty are fundamentally the same thing approached in different ways. I don’t see how you can say one of the three are ”subjective” and the others aren’t. They are all basically analogous to each other.

But that's just an assertion as well. It seems we have reached an impasse here.

 

[The Name of Love]

But that's just an assertion as well. It seems we have reached an impasse here.

Only if you ignored what I actually said.

If there wasn’t some thing about the art that moved us, we would not be moved.

The subjectivist position would have us believe that there is nothing about the art itself that moves us; rather, it's our own psychology that creates beauty ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"). In contrast, objectivist position believes that it is something objective about the art - namely, its perfection of being - that elicits such a reaction within us.

 

[Abhorsen]

If there wasn’t some thing about the art that moved us, we would not be moved.

That's nearly a tautology. Something about the art moved us, namely how it looked resonated with us. But ultimately, if there were no people, then the art would have no one to move, so it wouldn't be moving. That point gives next to no evidence for your claim that there is some fundamental beauty in the world. Meanwhile, we have countless examples of people throughout time valuing works of art differently, with cultural context mattering a lot to how they are valued.