Iconoclaste wrote...
It exists in science and mathematics. In language, it is much debatable, agreed. That is why good form is important.Gigamantis wrote...
Objectivity is simply a lack of pre-conception and other factors that would mitigate your ability to be fair. It doesn't exist in any pure form when gauging opinions but some are definitely more objective than others.Iconoclaste wrote...
Different opinions can arise from same set of facts. Arguments used to validate opinions can be right or wrong, sound or flawed, and use facts in their formulation. Facts can be of different nature (scientifically proven, "objective", generally accepted, etc). The "objective criteria" apply to facts, not to opinions.Gigamantis wrote...
An opinion can be based on objective criteria, which is what most people who attempt to have valid opinons do.Iconoclaste wrote...
An opinion cannot be objective. It is a subjective concept.Gigamantis wrote...
People who let their emotions leak into what should be an objective opinion aren't controlling their emotions.
This is more directed at Giga, I'm just including your quote Icono as a step-to for my post:
Actually, this is where people are often wrong with objectivity in art and language, and why IMO you're wrong in your assertions about being objective, Giga.
Objectivity in language, art and literature is identical to objectivity in maths or science: the only difference is the ability to illustrate it.
Objectivity in maths and science is judging something based upon existing knowledge and academic precepts.
Objectivity in language, art and literature is judging something based upon existing knowledge and academic precepts.
It is exactly the same. The difference is that knowledge and academic precepts wih art and literature is the accumulation of information over the ages as to what structures and techniques produce good art or literature. This is objectivity in art and literature, not some formless attempt at "distancing" yourself from the subject matter since it is impossible to do so if your subsequent statements are still based upon opinion.
Obviously it is harder to engage this knowledge into discussion because it cannot be categorized as easily. If we talk about Differentiation - Second Order, we talk about Differentiation - Second Order. However, if we talk about what makes a good story, there are a huge number of variants. This is the only difference between the two though, and people often mistake the large variation of knowledge on art and literature as meaning there is no objectivity with it: it is simply that the objectivity is ****ing big.
Until you can back up your assertions with examples as to how ME3's ending fulfills a structural precept I won't consider the viewpoint "objective". That isn't to say that unless you're a conformist - or your work is - that whatever you produce is bad, but more the consideration that there is a reason such structures exist: they've been shown to work over countless ages. It is not empirical evidence but statistical to overwhelming reliability.
Modifié par Myrmedus, 03 avril 2012 - 08:50 .
Retour en haut
