Quality: Subjective or Objective?

quality-having a high degree of excellence

If it excels in something measurable such as picture and sharpness, then by definition it is better quality in those categories.

It doesn't mean you value picture or sharpness, so the product's overall quality is subjective to your personal taste (say you value audio or size), but measurable characteristics are objective.

 

Ok. What makes you think two plus two equals four? You pick up two coconuts. You pick up another two coconuts. You now have four, right? How can you prove, entirely, that the sum total will always come to four? You can't. You can sit there doing it for eternity, yet you can never conclusively prove that sooner or later 2+2 wont equal five. How do you know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 to somebody else? I mean, some people might consider that absurd, but it's a serious question. You are absolutely positive, in your mind, that 2+2 equals four, come hell or high water. What if I thought otherwise, and when I picked up two coconuts, and another three, and it came to five, I said that I'd only picked up two coconuts the second time?

And THIS is why I find arguing with subjectivists to be a great waste of my time.

It seems to me that subjectivists must assert that everything is subjective, or else their entire argument falls apart. To do that, you have to assert that 2+2 may not necessarily equal 4.

2 + 2 = 4

I can offer no proof, but I don't need to either: it is clearly true. If you want to argue this, fine, but I'm not going to waste too much effort doing so.

 

Bubba - I like your assessment of postmodernism. Personally, I'd like to see it just dissolve when someone does a post-modernist critique of postmodernism. The inherent logical black hole would destroy post-modernism for ever, until some daring young radical did a postmodernist critique of a post-modernist critique of postmodernism. Which would either give us post-postmodernism or reconstructed post-modernism, which would spur on an unreconstructed post-moderinst debate, all of which basically means a new academic discipline.

Which is my subjective opinon!

E_S

 

Personally I believe there is a big gray area. There are some movies/art/music that anyone with a reasonable mind would say it good or bad, but most music/movies/art falls into a gray area.

Honestly, to me, for something to be good, it must have allot of meaningful content (yeah, that is a little vague), and allot of effort must have been put into it (a bit easier to define).

TPM did not have enough content for me, so I see it as bad (although I do say it is somewhat good in that effort was put into the effects). AOTC was decent in all respects. Some Anime (Cowboy Bebop, Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke) is good because it has both good content and allot of effort put into it (do you know how hard it is to draw detailed movies/shows like that?). Rap IMHO takes no effort to make or perform, so I see it as low quality.

Also remember that it is possible to like something that is bad, or not like something that is good. There is also the disctenction of what you will watch/listen/look at more than what is good and what you like. LOTR I think is one of the best films made, but I cant watch it as much as I can watch various episodes of Cowboy Bebop.

 

I refer to the original post:

All objects have some form of quality, whether it be poor or good. The wooden table I'm typing on is of poor quality; it breaks easily, scratches easily, and doesn't even look good. Everyone would agree that the table is of poor quality. Therefore quality is objective.

I think that the final line itself is rather subjective. To somebody who has never seen a table before, it would probably be of good quality. To somebody who has been deprived of a table to eat at or to type on, it would probably be of good quality also. The only reason why we claim that the table is of bad quality is because humans as a whole have been trained to reply in such ways to such situations.

Furthermore, the quality of an object does depend greatly on personal likings/dislikings. Maybe I have a really lousy pen in my hand, and it stops working on and off, but it gives a drawing a good effect. In this situation, I would absolutely love the pen, and might consider it to be of good quality.

 

And that is why I think, at least in the area of the arts, quality is subjective.

Take note the poster who said TPM did not offer him quality wise the content he desired. And that is fine. It is his own opinion based on the film.

Now take me, I found TPM to be superb. I found the story interesting, fun and engaging and I felt the same way about the characters. I found TPM to be of high quality.

Either way, he cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot convince him otherwise. So quality is subjective.

Of course, no art is perfecct because perfection does not exist in my opinion. On that note, I can find flaws in TPM and find flaws in Citizen Kane or flaws in Alien.

There are times where quality cannot be so subjective, such as the example one used, which is of better quality, the DVD player that offers better audio and video or the one that offers lower audio/video?

Of course, we know which one is of better quality. But quality is different when it applies to things that offer a clear function for use.

Art is another area together. Because art triggers feelings and emotions and is very personal. Art does not have a clear cut function. It does not serve something material or serve a clear cut function.

You have two wooden tables, exactly the same. But one was badly made and could break easily, the other cannot. Of course, we know which one is of better quality.

 

Moving up.

 

son_of_the_tear: Of course, we know which one is of better quality. But quality is different when it applies to things that offer a clear function for use.

Art is another area together. Because art triggers feelings and emotions and is very personal. Art does not have a clear cut function. It does not serve something material or serve a clear cut function.

But is the quality of art purely subjective?

You have two pieces of art: one is carefully designed and artistically created. The other was sloppily designed and hastily created. One is pleasing to almost everyone's eye. The other is liked only by the occasional nut and tossed in the garbage. We know that some artists gain wider acclaim. Why else would we all have heard of van Gogh and Monet but no one has heard of the unpracticed artist down the street. Maybe the quality of art is more subjective that the quality of a functional piece such as a table, but there still must be some objective quality to it.

 

I think it is impossible to imagine what objective is, because by trying to imagine (create) a concept or system of objects, the perceived 'object' is subject to the conditions of examination...kind of a quantum thing...

Everything we imagine/perceive is subject to our imagination/perception, therefore it must be impossible, in THESE terms, for us to experience objectivity.