Baby Driver (Edgar Wright, 2017) Movie • Page 15

A while back fronkensteen and I had a big argument about the latter seasons of Seinfeld. I said that they are not funny and that they do not contain smart writing, while he argued the opposite. Calling either one of us factually wrong is just a way to shut down debate. I find the latter seasons unwatchable because of the broad comedy and changing of the personalities of the characters, but he does not see it that way. I feel he is wrong but I cannot prove he is wrong because it is not a math equation or some sort of measurable quality.

Now, if I said that Seinfeld was on for eight seasons and he said it was on for nine, I would be objectively wrong. This stuff seems obvious, but for whatever reason people value the supremacy of their views.

 

I knew your name looked familiar, haha

I was probably a dick in that thread ;)

 

Actually, this is probably more helpful:

Dewey's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Schopenhauer's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Croce's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Heidegger's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Wittgenstein's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Gadamer's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hume's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Goodman's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hegel's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Beardsley's Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

None of this stuff is "obvious" or settled. It's a philosophical debate that's continual and some adhere closer to western, eastern, or other various forms/philosophies. Some really dig a Dvaita dualistic view of subjective/objective, others, not so much. It's not settled, it's argued to this day.

Edit: An example would be this paragraph (from the Kant link) that lays out just how debated the topic is, even if we only look at discussing Kant:

Should judgments of beauty be regarded as objective? Ameriks has argued (1982, 1983, 1998, 2000) that in spite of Kant's claim that judgments of beauty are “subjectively grounded,” they are nonetheless objective in the same sense that judgments of colour and other secondary qualities are objective. Similar views are proposed by Savile (1981) and Kulenkampff (1990); see also the references offered by Ameriks at (2003, 307n.1). The claim is challenged by Ginsborg (1998), who defends the subjectivity of taste on the grounds that Kant does not allow that we can make judgments of beauty on the basis of hearsay, but must “subject the object to our own eyes” (§8, 5:215–216); a similar point is made in Hopkins (2001), and there is further discussion of aesthetic testimony in Gorodeisky (2009). Ameriks responds to Ginsborg's challenge in his (1998); the objectivity of taste is defended further in Makkai (2010).

The question of whether Kant should be interpreted as committed to the objectivity of taste is closely related to the question of whether there can be erroneous judgments of taste; for some discussion see Cohen (1982), pp. 222–226 and Allison (2001), pp. 107–108.

 

This is exactly why the idea of "smart writing" is subjective. That was what has been said several times.

 

No, it's why some claim it's subjective and others claim it resides somewhere else on virtually an infinite spectrum, as many would (and have) argued it's objective, and then others a sliding degree and reject the duality completely.

 

People disagreeing without a right and wrong answer is subjectivity in a nutshell, whether it is the qualities of "smart writing" or the definitions of these words. By contrast, no one can disagree that Scott Pilgrim was 112 minutes wrong or that it made 47.7 million dollars at the box office.

 

It depends on the level of intelligence of the person deciding whether or not something is smart.

A dunce would think I'm a genius, whereas a genius would think I have an average IQ.

That's about as crude as I can say it, haha

 

And many would, and have, argued that there is a right and wrong answer or, again, reject that premise of duality entirely. What you're saying is an object fact of time can't be argued against, what some would argue is they agree and beauty is an object fact as well. Others would reject only two options, and someone would probably point out and argue that not even time is "objective."

 

"Smart" and "dumb" are not even good indicators anyway. The dunce could be much "smarter" at mechanical skills while the genius can be "dumber" in social interactions.

I think back to my job again in this situation. When I give a multiple choice test, there is an objectivity to it, provided I wrote the questions fairly. If fronkensteen did better than CarpetElf, he gets a higher score. It does not necessarily translate to "intelligence", as one could have put in more work, or cheated, or did less drugs than the other. When something is a project, or an essay, or something creative (which for one project included making a short video, bringing this back around a bit), there is a subjectivity to it. We try to provide rubrics in order to create a framework for them to work on, but the quality of those rubric guidelines are themselves subjective. A similar thing would occur in this attempt to quantify the intelligence of a film's writing; who is the person determining whether or not it is smart? In the classroom the teacher is judging, so it is their subjective view, but in a movie, it is the subjective view of every single person watching the film.

There also is the ugly effect of implying that someone who does not think a supposedly objective "smartly written" movie is all that smart must themselves be dumb. I doubt it is intentional, but it is there.

 

That last bit was definitely not intentional and I hope it didn't get taken that way. It was just a crude analogy.

But I pretty much agree with this whole post.

 

I was referring to the idea that there is an objective "smart writing", not you. I was defending you.

 

Sometimes I read too quickly and misunderstand :(

But thanks!

 

So to recap: Its up for debate whether "smart writing" is objective or subjective. Some people like and see value in RT scores, other's do not.

Cool now that we have all that cleared up. I can't wait for Tuesday to see this. For me personally, Edgar Wright is 4/4 so far. I pretty much trust him to entertain me no matter what.

 

No. If it is up for debate, it is by definition subjective.

 

Worth sharing for anyone that's never seen it:

 

People debate things all the time that one would consider "objective." And many, prominently in eastern philosophies, do not believe in the duality of subjective/objective to begin with. But if we look at just things in our world right now: do we believe slaves should exist? Is that a subjective "opinion" simply because someone wants to debate it? Can we say it's objectively wrong? Or is it subjective simply because it's up for debate?

I know where I stand on that: I don't think it's subjective just because people debate it.

 

What do people debate that is objective?

 

Dude, let it go.

 

You posted again in a conversation and are telling people not to respond to you?

 

Off the top of my head: Owning slaves is wrong.

 

Obviously that is subjective.

 

What the fuck.

 

I knew you would try to do that when you brought it up the first time. Morality is by definition subjective.

 

Where the hell did I say not to respond?