Subjectively tasty. If there would be an objectively tasty meal, it would be tasty to everyone. That is what “objective” IS. And not even all humans find a specific meal tasty, or pleasing to the olfactory nerves. There is a wonderful cheese called “Stinking Bishop” (has nothing to do with the member of clergy.) Some people love it, others hate it. So is it “objectively” tasty?
What you are missing here is that fact that all taste buds are not identical.
You are mixing metaphors. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Some complained that the beauty of the Sistine Chapel was lost with the cleaning of Michelangelo’s work…others were enthralled…subjectivity. A child’s scrawling is likely more beautiful to his parents…subjectivity.
This doesn’t follow. Why would something objective necessarily be accepted by all subjects?
Again, what needs to be separated out is whether determinations are by their very nature subjective or objective. Tastiness is completely a subjective determination, which is why there are no (or few, in any case) disputes over whether something is tasty or not. You say it is tasty for you, others do not find it tasty for them. No issue.
And just who would be these determinants of beauty? Would we have to have a class of humans who gather and reach an objective view on beauty and pronounce it to the world?This doesn’t follow. Why would something objective necessarily be accepted by all subjects?
That would entirely depend upon the capacity of subjects to access objective reality.
Your assumption is that all humans, i.e., “everyone,” has the capacity to recognize what is objectively real merely by virtue of their being…what exactly? Subjects?
In other words, something is objectively true or real if all subjective views about it concur.
That just seems an odd claim.
Almost as odd, in fact, as claiming things are subjective when subjects don’t agree to an assessment or don’t assess the objects in question through the same lense.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
The objectivity of reality cannot depend upon the agreement or disagreement by subjects, but on the objective properties of the reality.
Whether any or all subjects can make determinations about objective reality is a function of their capacity to assess reality, not merely a function of their being subjects.
One competent subject may have a more accurate view of objective reality than millions of subjects who are less competent to make objective determinations. Sheer numbers do not determine objective reality.
Again, what needs to be separated out is whether determinations are by their very nature subjective or objective. Tastiness is completely a subjective determination, which is why there are no (or few, in any case) disputes over whether something is tasty or not. You say it is tasty for you, others do not find it tasty for them. No issue.
****The question is whether beauty is THAT kind of determination or not.
That isn’t settled by whether or not subjects agree or disagree on the matter. It may be that determinations of beauty are not easily made and require an assessment of a range of factors. That, in itself, does not make beauty merely a subjective quality even though it may or may not be appreciated by any or all subjects****.
Always…but there is no certainty that another person will agree. Since there is not a set of rules for beauty, how can it be objective? Each person judges it based on their own perception.
View attachment 22118Always…but there is no certainty that another person will agree. Since there is not a set of rules for beauty, how can it be objective? Each person judges it based on their own perception.
At least that’s the way I see it (subjective).
John
Yes. That is exactly the case. If we stick to the visual art, some people like the classicist style, others like abstract and so on. There is good theater play where the story revolves around a “painting”, which is a canvas painted uniformly white. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_(play
Determinants are attributes, not who’s. These the common objective features that elicit the subjective response that subjects identify as beauty.
But I’m sure you would agree he was objectively insane.
You are still missing the point. That people prefer different schools of art only reflects their preference and comfort zone. It does not reflect the objective qualities of the work of art, as Peter has already pointed out. Either a thing has these objective qualities of great art or it does not.
Three questions:
Again, having the ability to “measure” things does not magically turn a quantifiable property or quality into a NON-subjective one. All that measurement does is standardize a consistency so that similarly endowed subjects can agree upon it. The quantifiable property is still SUBJECT dependent in the sense that the measurement is relative to but consistent with the perspective of the subjects. The size of an object is quantifiable relative to human subjects and relative to other objects, but still completely based upon the perspective of the subjects. We don’t really know whether the universe is “big” or insignificant in comparison to what is beyond it. It may be that the universe is a speck of dust relative to what is beyond it, just as the body of a human being is universe-sized relative to sub-atomic particles that comprise it.
As Peter just noted, the fact that people do not agree on the measurement of the “objective” qualities is no argument that objective qualities do not exist. Any number of scientists can propose different views of the truth about origin the universe. That is no argument that there is not an objective fact, elusive as it may be, that the universe began in a certain objective way that was not dependent upon the way we subjectively perceive the universe to have begun.
The expression “the universe began to exist” is nonsense, exactly like pondering: “what exists to the north from the North Pole”. Syntactically it is correct, but semantically it is empty and void of meaning. It assumes an absolute “time” as proposed by Newton. Since Einstein’s theory of relativity this view obsolete. There is NO absolute time, NO absolute space. Repeating physical nonsense does not make it metaphysically acceptable.
You keep repeating this, but it does not help you. WHAT is that “inherent greatness”? And who can we “find it”? What you find “subjectively great” only talks about your subjective measurement system - not that there is anything wrong with it. The problem is when you wish to establish your personal taste as the “etalon” for everyone else.