Is Popularity an Objective Standard? (Response to Michael Knipp)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2021
- #booktube
Back to the discussion of subjectivity in art, and if there can be an objective review of a particular work. This video is in response to a video put out by Michael Knipp, over on his channel, where he argues that popular opinion is the only objective standard. Below, you can see that video.
Popular Opinion is the ONLY objective Standard:
• Popularity is the ONLY...
Michael Nipp’s channel:
/ @questlegacy
Other channels mentioned:
Christy Louis Dostoyevsky in Space:
/ @christyluisdostoevsky...
Allen over at Library of Allenxandria:
/ @thelibraryofallenxandria
Allen’s response video to Michael Knipp’s video :
• Michael is Wrong: A Re...
"To his dog, every man is Napoleon; hence the constant popularity of dogs." Aldous Huxley
I have heard that quote before, but had no idea it was Huxley who said it, haha. Thanks! 😎
That is a quality quote.
That's a great quote
I agree with you 1284%! I’m…not very good at math. I do agree with you completely though and I’m glad you made this video. You explained this way better than I ever could.
Thank you very much! It is an interesting topic with so many aspects, it is really good to see that most people don't take the appeal to authority route. It can be a very dangerous one, haha.
I really admire your ability to summarize such a complex matter. Agree with your thoughts 100%.
Thank you very much, Tom! I am glad I made sense here--I thought I may have gone too quickly haha
Excellent video. I'm also thinking about the social pressure behind popular literature. The consensus can be turned on its side by simple phrases such as "HOW CAN YOU NOT LIKE THIS BOOK?!? I don't know about you but this irks me to no end.
That is a very good point. Social pressure definitely influences people and thus amplifies its popularity. Another good reason on why popular opinion does not define what is good and bad art. Thank you!
Excellent observation. The fear of being considered lesser for not being able to see whaat the majority consider as a fine work, is a terrible pressure. For me I think that the reason for this is a great lack of education into what is thought to constitute art, refinement, culture.
Great break down and the last bit was kind of beautiful in that "Wow I love irony" kind of way.
Haha, I did have to bring that up. The appeal to authority argument is a logical fallacy for very good reasons. It just doesn't work. 😅
One of your best videos my friend. And that's saying something considering your usual standard.
Loved how you went about this video. Really drew me in and made me want to join in the discussion.
For me there are several problems with popularity being the measuring stick. A thousand children vs 100 dieticians would end up in a populist vote for sweets being the best diet!
Thank you so much! And yes! That is a really great example. It just doesn't seem to work haha
The thought behind this topic is brilliant!
Thank you very much! 😎😊
WHEW BOY! That ending, talk about saving the knockout punch till the final seconds.
Great discussion!! I can see how several different tops of popularity can influence and how every work can be different!!
It is an interesting discussion, for sure, and there are so many things to take into account, it is not an easy one haha. Thanks for checking it out! 😎
Always enjoy hearing your perspectives on topics like this
Oh, Thank you very much! I really enjoy doing response videos!😎
Fascinating discussion! The last line was absolutely hilarious and true to the nature of your argument.
Hahah I pretty much wrote the whole script around that one joke 🤣😂
@@attention5638 Glad I could pick out the seminal line!
I love exploring different logical fallacies from time to time, just as a reality check! There are at least two approaches to criticism that actually encourage subjectivity (that I know of). Or, rather than encourage, they acknowledge it, and take what they can from it. I watched a couple of conferences where teenagers wrote their works about Dostoevsky's short stories and novellas, and they were really impressive. I think that in this day and age, most people are aware of their lack of objectivity, at least I hope this is the case. Really concise and deep exploration of the topic, as always! Now, I have to read Napoleon's letters, at least.
Thank you very much! I am interested in those conferences. Is that something you saw on the internet? And yes, I agree, I think most people are very aware. At least, from my personal experience, it seems to be the majority. I still want to read Napoleon's romance novel he wrote. I hear it is not bad hahah
@@attention5638 Yes, they're on the internet, but only in Russian and, at times, Italian. The best essays are also published in journals, such as Dostoevsky and World Culture, but as far as I know they haven't been translated yet.
Ooo I'd love to see that conference.
I appreciate that little popular thought paradox at the end lol
It was a good one! 😅
Fantastic points where made here Pae!!! Your are far more articulate than myself. But I overall agree with the points made by both you and Allen.
Hey Andrew! Thank you very much! Allen was definitely more passionate in his video, haha which is always great to see! 😊
Very interesting points, loved the ending 😄 Thank you 😊
Thank you so much for checking it out!😊
I loved this addition to the discussion and love how you take it to a deeper level without attributing bad faith to some of my more facetious statements
Thank you for checking it out! And I would never! You always raise great discussions with these kinds of videos, and they are greatly appreciated!😊
Great thought provoking discussion!
Thank you very much! 😊😊
This was such an interesting argument and I believe you worded it perfectly. Objective and subjective views do not necessarily have to cancel each other out. One works well with the other.
Exactly! Well said, thank you!😊
🎤 Love the mic drop statement at the end there, Pae! As Bart Simpson once said, "The ironing is delicious!"😂
Hahahah oh, Bart Simpson, he was too quick for me haha😅
All of which points to conversations about objective/subjective as a practice in vocalizing thought processes/analysis, not as something definitive. I've had to practice stating my opinions as such, rather than defining whether something is 'good' or 'bad'. It's a tough thing to be consistent about. Great discussion, I love your ability to present information in a neutral way, it really promotes independent thought. Thank you!
Thank you so much! I am glad you liked this. And yeah, I really try to avoid saying something is "good" or "bad" for that reason. (outside generic remarks like "its a good day" or whatnot). But when it comes to the arts, it really doesn't mean much when describing something as either good or bad, as those terms will have slight differences in meaning depending on the person.
you illuminate when you discuss what's fucking pertinent🖤
Oh! Thank you! I don't remember what I said in this one, and I am way too afraid to go back and watch these after they are up 😅
Omg I looooove this topic! So much to think about! I feel like, in general, people do have a hard time separating personal opinions from being "objective". Hell, it's hard so me sometimes!!!😁 I at least can recognize that while I love Twilight ( don't tell anyone lol), I can also recognize that it's not Shakespeare. That being said, this is exactly why I don't do any sort of "rating" when it comes to reviews... ratings mean too many different things to too many different people, and I don't know if there's such a thing as a "perfect " book... so I would probably never give any book 5 stars🤣🤣🤣
You make a good point here, with Twilight. There is nothing wrong with liking it, but even the people that like the novel are still able to recognize the quality, which does hint at an objective standard, as there wouldn't be that if there weren't.😊😎
@@attention5638 Ha ha so true!😁
this was great!
Thank you so much for checking it out! Glad you liked it 😊
I don't remember if I've said it yet or not, but congratulations on being over 1,000 subscribers. It's very much deserved here. Wonderful discussion, as always. On Michael Knipp's video I posted a comment about it being a fallacy to link sales numbers to how much people liked something; people will buy a book or movie ticket before reading the book or seeing the film and thus they don't actually know if they like it yet or not when they spend that money. They don't return the book after reading it or ask for their money back from the film so we don't actually know if they enjoyed the product. I can think of some recent Star Wars films that I contributed to the profits and "popularity" of, even though I was very much disappointed by them. Peace!
Thank you very much, my friend! Hopefully I can keep it up haha. And yes! That is a very good point. I have heard people talk about the marketing playing a roll, but I haven't heard anyone mention this particular detail about that. Often times the work is prejudged, and when sales are concerned, that prejudgment is all that remains. We see this a lot on BookTube. A bad review started off with an anticipation that the book would not have that outcome. Thanks for bringing this up!😎😎
That last phrase froze my brain admitting right is wrong
I think you articulate your idea very well as last time! And we can see that popularity tend to influence a bit what other people think about that certain object and maybe cloud the judgment they have
Absolutely! I cannot see a way in which popular opinion can create a subjective view. I may have to do a second video on this in the future hahah
You did make me laugh with your closing remarks.
I pretty much wrote the whole script for that last remark 😅
Great video as usual!
I personally don't put any weight on popular opinion. To look at another form of art, interior design, paint colours and materials are on trend for a few years (or even a decade) and then, based on industry influence to sell more stuff (e.g. renovations, new couches, etc) the "opinions" shift. Similarly, books, as much as we tend to view them as inherently valuable and timeless, are a commodity and more under the sway of market leaders massaging their buyers than they are a public referendum on a specific title's objective value. It's no accident, generally, when an older book resurrges in popularity - it's a marketing play by the rights holders.
But I could also be blinded by cynicism. 😁
Oh, I think you are absolutely right. And the point about the resurgence of a book is very important, as it shows the unreliability of the popular opinion. Thank you very much!😊
Great sharing my friend. Fully watched. Stay connected..😀 New here👍🏻
Oh! Thank you! And for sure!😎😊
lol the ending sealed the deal xD
I thought it was kind of funny 😅 thanks for checking this out!😎
The Napoleon splice in reminded me I have actually read Clisson and Eugenie by Napoleon. I just had to go into Goodreads and officially rate it. LOL.
I have never read it, but have always been really curious. Is it any good?
@@attention5638 I feel like it was too short, but I gave it 3 stars out of 5 so I'd say a decent romance intrigue story. Some people think it's potentially a self-insert story too, which makes it all the more interesting. Poor Napoleon, LOL, and his broken heart.
Very nice video 👍❤️
Thank you so much!😊😊
May I just say that I am obsessed with your bookcases! To each his (or her) own. People are unique. Let everyone respectively decide which books THEY like or don't. Popular or not. I don't like people telling me that I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T like any particular book. I will like what I like and that is that. Also, just because any book gains popularity, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a GOOD book. I am not a literary "snob", I don't follow the crowd or "lead" it either. I don't look down on people's opinion of any book whether or not they agree or not with my taste or opinion of said book. The Bible is one of the most wildly read or one of the most "popular" books known to man. But that does not mean everyone HAS read it or has LIKED it. That's all I am gonna say on this topic. Great video as always! I love your content and will keep coming back for more, just to hear what you have to say on any given subject!
Thank you so much, that really means a lot. 😊 And yeah, I agree, let people do what it is they want when it comes to deciding what to read. Whatever makes one happy, and for whatever reason they read, it is all good! 😎
Awesome video my man as always.
👌🏽👊🏽😎🔥
Thank you very much! Glad You like it! 😊😊😎
Terrific video as always! I would love to time travel and see if people will be talking about the Arc of The Scythe trilogy or if the future is like the books 🤣 but I agree that only time can tell...and I may be I'm wrong 🤷🏻♀️😅
Hahaha that would be interesting. Who knows how people will view a lot of popular novels today. If we took the critics of Gothic lit from the 20th century and placed them in a university today, they may be surprised to see it being taken very seriously hahaha😅
@@attention5638 Yes! Like how popular Poe is now when America's rejected him when he was around haha
Love that Michael came back from paternity leave to dive right in to a controversial video. 😂😂 I'm definitely going to have to go watch his video!
Right! It is pretty great 😅 his reviews are always fun to listen to, but when he starts something, it seems to make its waves throughout BookTube hahah
‘Why not just throw out reviews all together and just use statistics?”-Oh that’s so good, I’m going to have to use that-excellent! Also, the point that current popular novels are selling better than Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky is likely to still be around 100 years from now while the popular novels aren’t, is really critical, and I’m glad you brought that up. And you hit a home run with your closing point!
Great video. That was lot to take in, but I like what you had to say about only being able to view objective truth through subjectivity. I don’t know if I fully agree, and it is something I’ll have to think on more, but that’s why I like it. Very interesting discussion.
-T
Thank you so much! It is an interesting debate, and hearing everyone else's opinion on this subject has been really fun! 😎😊
Had to come back & letcha know that Napoleon comment still cracks me up at random 😂
Hahaha, oh good! I thought it was pretty funny 😅
I love how this ended with your debunking the popularity argument by its own standards. 🙂
Haha, Thank you! I thought that was kind of funny 😅
I think time is way more important in this discussion. In a weird way objectivity can almost change over time (which does not make sense on the surface, but bear with me!) Saying something is popular may be objective and true in the present, but in the next decade that could completely change. The new objective statement would be “it WAS popular” even though the concept and popularity has changed over time (it could be an obsolete book or thought by then!). It does not make either statements false, but since the objectivity has evolved, both need a deeper exploration factoring in the changes over time. “Napoleon would have made a better romance novelist!” 😂😂😂 good point! Nice discussion!
Morning, sunshine!😀
@@stevencorey1278 Hi Steven!
Oh, absolutely! An objective reality is really just anything that exists separate from the mind. Something that exists "as is." Things do constantly change, and therefore change in "how" they exist. There is a lot written on this, especially in philosophy. If you are interested in any of it, I can recommend some things. A lot of it deals in phenomenology, which, in my opinion, is the most fun to read haha😅
@@attention5638 Yes, I would love some recommendations! 😊
I often associate a book’s excessive hype/popularity with a low probability for personal enjoyment. I may gravitate to a book due to its overall popularity, (ex. Twilight or The Midnight Library), but often find myself disappointed/my opinion of a poor quality book. Ironically, I want to popularize books which I deem as “good” quality, which often carry mixed opinions (ex, Space Opera or Oval). This is where peer review comes in: I’m not seeking the general collective’s popular opinion, but the popular opinion of a very select group of like-readers. But that’s not POPULAR-popular.
Popularity of contemporary lit often has to do with a book’s marketing budget, so it’s a manufactured response to publicity-not an opinion. Classics have the luxury of time to build reputation, and sometimes the response is simply “it survived 100 years, therefore must be good.” Since popularity can be bought, we shouldn’t use it to pass judgment on a book’s quality… Oops! 🧐🤦♀️
I completely agree. With so much out there today, it is more of a marketing game than it is to do with the book itself. Which can be really sad, as it brings down quality overall. I find I am disappointed with hyped books more often than I am anything else. But, there does seem to be this push toward indie novels, which may be where the art form can survive!😊😎
Excellent video! I completely agree with everything that you say in this one too, and feel you have put it more articulately than my brain was doing this time around. 🤣💜
Except..that I still disagree that we can't make critical reviews (probably badly paraphrasing that here, forgive me, I was too lazy to go back for an exact quote) out of objective facts; I think we just have to make completely *different* _kinds_ of critical reviews than we would make using subjective information. I just don't know how to articulate what I mean by that exactly or any good examples of it to give right now, because my brain doesn't work in words(it works more in abstract concepts or impressions or something), so I have to actively try and translate myself into words and it's tough sometimes.😅😅 _wow-that sounds really weird to actually say...😶🙃 i'm not sure if i should apologize, or what .. lolll_
Love that last point about the irony too-that actually hadn't occurred to me, but it's true!!!😹 🤭🤭
In the intro, when I mention that comment that pointed out my bad phrasing, I was talking about yours 😅 I wasn't sure if you were okay with me actually mentioning it hahaha.
And yes! Hahah I think I understand what you are saying, but it is difficult to say. It is kind of what I was trying to say when mentioning the difference of "knowing objective truth and knowing of objective truth." We definitely can use objective facts, but those objective facts are perceived through a subjective perception. For example, it is an objective fact that Holden Caufield is 16 years old in The Catcher in the Rye. I can use that objective fact in a review, but what I say about it, if he acts like a believable 16 year old, is a subjective opinion on the objective fact. I am mainly arguing that objectivity has to be used for subjectivity to exist. Objectivity is the thing itself in which subjectivity plays on. Without an objective base, we have nothing to have a subjective opinion on. I may be making less sense the more I type hahah🤣😅
@@attention5638 😹😹 (I kinda suspected it was, to be honest.. LOLL😅 🤭) I appreciate your respectful consideration/caution about it, since not everyone always would be...although I actually am okay with you mentioning it. 🙂 The way I see it - it was a public comment, on a public video, anyhow .. so it's technically fair game, whether I like it or not; but I do generally try not to say anything online that I wouldn't say in public in my offline life myself too, and personally I don't really see how you mentioning it is or would-be all that terribly different from my posting it openly in the first place. ? If that makes sense? Lol Buut, yeah, That's just me. ^-^ 🤷♀️ 😆
Don't worry, I think your coherence remained sound your whole comment. This might just be me nitpicking over semantics again here, but I would say more that objectivity is specifically our perception(s) of a thing itself even moreso than it is just the thing itself alone - while subjectivity is more how we personally think/feel about or respond to said-thing &/or our perception(s) either of or from things which originate internally rather than externally, but yes. Although I think is also possible to subjectively manufacture things that don't even actually exist nor stem from something real at all, I definitely agree that when it comes to subjective reviews or views of actual things our subjectivity in that case certainly does have to stem from the objective things or facts themself or at least from our more objective perceptions of the thing in the first place[ possibly in combination to some varying degree with whatever other things/perceptions we have accumulatively garnered together priorly that may or may not also somehow relate-to or affect it], and without that we wouldn't even have a subjective review or view on that specific thing at all! But it's true, as long as someone isn't trying to insist their subjective opinions are objective truths moreso than anyone else's are, quibbling over what is or isn't objective and subjective is a somewhat moot point since there will inevitably always be some subjective element or another at play and so many things straddle a line or combination between both subjectivity and objectivity; although it does create interesting discussion/food-for-thought.
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 I had to wait to reply to this until I could on my laptop. Couldn't do it on my phone hahaha. I do think we are agreeing much more than seeing a difference, here. I think one problem I see in this debate is a conflation between objectivity with truth, and subjectivity with opinion--when these are actually four different things. Anything that is true is true for a subject, and this subject may view this truth subjectively. Though true none the less, all natural knowledge is derived from experience and remains within experience. Anything outside experience cannot be known in this sense. But that does not necessarily mean objectivity cannot be achieved. it is more an ontological question that rests in the relationship between physical and mental phenomenon. This then will get into transcendental idealism, which no one finds a fun topic haha. I am actually more interested in what you mean when you say one can subjectively manufacture things that do not exist, nor stem from something that is real. I don't think I am understanding this the way it is meant to be understood haha 😅😂
@@attention5638 Don't even worry about waiting to reply. I probably wouldn't mind it, even if you just didn't reply at all...until, suddenly, literal years later.😅😅 🤣 _(in hindsight, I've realized this could have come off sounding wrong/offensive, and I just want to be clear that I wasn't saying I hope you don't reply .. I was just saying I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't, and if for some reason you didn't reply until sometime randomly years from now I'd still probably just be like "Wow! Long time!!! Lovely to hear from you again!!" or something - and if I'm being unnecessarily clarifying here, don't mind me and just ignore it. 😅 Lol ^-^)_ I had to take a little bit of time before replying again now, myself, so I could try to be a little more sure that what I was typing is actually saying anything remotely close to what I am trying to say and/or wanted it to say. 😅 I was having a really difficult time thinking and articulating anything clearly because I was much too warm and I have no air conditioning really; but it's rained here for a couple days now.😁😁 😅 Lol
((😶THIS COMMENT GOT TOO LONG; and since I don't feel like trying to prune or reduce its character-count, I hope you don't mind that I’m just splitting it up into two separate comments - PART 1, of 2; Forgive me!🙏🙃 😅😅))
Oh, I definitely agree that we seem to be in agreement on much more than we're really disagreeing about anything here, too-I'm not even sure that I would go so far as to say that we necessarily for sure disagree on anything at all, so much as we just see it from slightly different angles! If that distinction even makes sense to anyone other than me..😅 (Like .. maybe it's not that we see it as completely different things, it's just that different details or aspects of the possibly-same thing stand out to each of us? 🤔 Or something like that - idk) LOLL 🤷♀️🤷♀️
I'm not at all surprised that one particular part didn't make complete sense, it was pretty confuddled....it's definitely a bit I was struggling to articulate or describe outside of just being a ‘something’ understood in my own mind, SORRY(!!). I think I was just trying to say, I agree that some subjective perspectives or opinions or such certainly can be based on objective or external things, but I also think that other subjective things can be based instead on things which aren't so much based on anything objective or external at all and actually just come purely from more internal and perhaps entirely made-up or imagined things[ and/or, like, just from our own personal thoughts or feelings that are organic to our own internal selves] and not necessarily or even at all caused in direct or specific response to something objective or external too? If that makes any more sense??🤔😅😅😁
At least...Without getting into questions or beliefs of transcendental realism or anything like that; just accepting that there is an external or physical/material world, and then also accepting that there is the internal existence(s)[ or internal ‘world’] of individual living-things/people, whether there is some greater or other scope of things or reality even beyond and/or outside of just that or not; and without debating whether or not people's internal worlds or internal existences do or don't only exist and come from or resultant-of physical processes like biochemical-hormones &/or neuron synapses firing or such. Basically-just accepting that[ ..for all intents and purposes.. at least within this particular discussion] ‘if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it still makes a sound’ and that red as a color still exists even if some people are colorblind to it & can't see red....but *also* accepting that an individual person might _think_ they've HEARD a sound, *even* when no sound was ever actually made.
(Because I see objective stuff not as specifically the concrete things themselves but more as our _perspective_ on [&/or perception of ]things based on more concrete &/or external things; while subjective stuff to me is more just our perspective on [&/or perception of ]things based on more inconcrete &/or internal things such as how we do or don't respond to something once we encounter it, or what something does or doesn't mean to us personally / how we personally do & don't see something, or how we personally feel whether that's how we feel about an objective thing or just how we feel in general all on our own. ..I think subjective things can therefore exist _either_ completely on their own OR in actual connection to/with objective things, but don't actually *_have_*_ to_ exist in tandem with anything more concrete or objective at all & don't necessarily even exist at all beyond just our own internal perception(s)/perspective(s), and are unique to our own personal selves and experience(s) of things or in general? Whereas objective things exist, beyond just our own personal perspectives-on and/or perceptions-of them, whether we actually ever personally perceive of them or not..even though our own perspective(s)-on/perception(s)-of them either may or may not always be 100% completely accurate or totally exact all of the time?)
But when it comes to viewing or reviewing something specific, like a book, in that case then of course our subjective opinions or perspectives on that particular thing truly couldn't/wouldn't exist at all without that objective thing itself actually existing first. Even though it is possible, as well, that we can also have opinions or perspectives that don't necessarily come from anything “real” or objective at all.
I don't know if this is or isn't clarifying anything at all here though.....Sorry! Ssoo, I'm going to just leave it at that and hope for the best, before I just start talking in circles and making it for sure just more & more confusing. Lol
@@attention5638 ((THIS COMMENT GOT TOO LONG; and since I don't feel like trying to prune or reduce its character-count, I hope you don't mind that I’m just splitting it up into two separate comments - PART 2, of 2.))
I do agree that objectivity, truth, subjectivity, and opinion are four different things though. I kind of see objectivity and truth as two intersecting but separate circles in one venn diagram, while subjectivity and opinion are two completely other intersecting but separate circles in a diagram too; I'm just not sure though if all four circles would or do exist in one same diagram, or if it would more accurately just be two-circles each a piece in two separate diagrams.🤔🤔🙃 IDK! Lolll
I think maybe some of the general conflation(s) of these four things comes from the fact that the words "objective" and "subjective" actually have multiple different contextualized *uses* that have cropped up over the years; So, depending on in which context exactly various person's individual understanding of the words and their meanings does or doesn't originate from(whether known or unbeknownst to that person themself - since some individuals may not per se learn a word in that specific context themself but may instead learn it when someone else uses it who did learn it in some specific context or another), what one person understands their meaning as being versus what another person does will change slightly; despite the fact that changing how it's used, or changing what exactly it's used in the context of, doesn't[ in my opinion] ACTUALLY change the meaning of the words themselves so much as it just alters what someone may or may not mean by using it in that particular context and/or what exactly someone may or may not intend to be saying or implying by using that particular word[ or those particular words] in that specific context versus in some other context.
Kind of like..the meaning of the word "fantasy" itself, versus what the word fantasy refers to when implemented specifically in the context of using that word as a specific genre of fiction or as a label for a specific genre of fiction; if that makes sense? The word fantasy still has a broader meaning and multiple other various possible uses of it[ or things that could be meant or referred to by using it] other than just what is specifically referenced or meant by it if or when it is used specifically within the context of being a particular genre of fiction and/or a label for that genre.
And that's the downside, I think, of most people learning most words by the context of use which they first encountered them in personally versus actually I dunno just learning about different words and what they do or don't mean outside of any specific context or contextualized uses of them or something. (If any of that also makes any sense?)
Like the word “subject” itself-it can be used to refer either to an individual person OR to a particular focus[ or a particular thing of focus / thing being focused on] OR to a specific topic[ or thing] of study &/or discussion. Some people might view that as the word "subject" literally having multiple different meanings, but I view that more as that particular word and it's meaning simply having multiple different *_uses_* and/or being used in multiple different contexts to refer[ &/or act as a label] to various differing things that may or may not all have existed yet during the first or original inception of that word and its meaning itself. (But I really don't know how much sense that makes to anyone else but me though.😅😅 I am trying to say it as comprehensibly as I can though, I promise; sorry, if it's failing! LOLL)
When it comes to truth though... I [personally] would say that things can be true even having nothing to do with a subject at all, though; unless we mean "subject" here not as an individual person but more just as a thing and/or topic at all in general(However a subject in that sense could not perceive anything about it either way, since only a subject in the sense of ‘subject’ being an individual person[ and/or any other thinking or feeling individual/thing] can perceive anything at all, either subjectively or otherwise). But a thing that’s true which _IS_ specifically true of &/or for a subject certainly *_may_* be perceived by said subject either subjectively or otherwise-THAT fact surely *is* true. Depending on what exactly you mean by “natural knowledge” - but presuming that you kind of just mean knowledge in general - I also agree that all true knowledge derives from experience, whether encountered directly/firsthand or indirectly/secondhand, and remains so / can not truly be known in this sense outside of that. And, yeah, I agree = none of these particular facts really mean that objectivity can't be reached at all. Of course different people have different ways of drawing the lines between the internal or “self” and the external or “outer”/”other” though...and what can[ & can’t] be proven-in my opinion-truly can only ever be proven to a certain point, and that point is itself really only ever our best understanding(s) of anything with whatever information we[ as far as we can tell] do actually have[ or not-have]; UNLESS someone is being extremely overconfident or even arrogant, in my opinion, to a point of folly. I wouldn't say that literally NO ONE finds transcendental realism a fun topic(Absolutes are[ I think] always dangerous like that & margins for error are also in general relatively important to maintain), but it is something certainly somewhat beyond the general[ or necessary] scope or bounds - I think - of this specific discussion itself, and is thus only as relevant to this as any individual might or might not choose to consider it being; and because of that..since it is also something which can neither be concretely proven NOR concretely disproven one way or another, and upon which different would believe or feel vastly differently..I would hazard to say that it is simply not particularly relevant here at all.😅 ((Buut, then again, what do I know🤷♀️🤷♀️)) 🤣 🤣
So, I guess, in one last[ more simplified] attempt at clarifying...I guess I was just meaning “real” in the sense of things that either may or may-not be ‘real’ specifically to one individual person, yet might not be as [physically &/or outwardly ]real beyond or outside of that/them[ or to anyone else] .. at least, insofar as humans typically understand or define ‘real’ versus ‘fictive’(?). So, a subjective thing or subjective standpoint or such, either may or may not necessarily be based on anything real and/or objective at all - I believe; But something objective, almost-certainly, should be. Although, I suppose, that is just my opinion or my own way of seeing it. Lol! ^-^
While I think objective popularity definitely has SOME merit when looking at how valuable a piece of work is it's definitely not the only or even the best measure of quality.
Agreed!
Oh, absolutely! I think it can be a great measure of quality for a lot of works, and definitely can have merit, so long as it is popular for the right reasons. However some things are popular for the lack of quality, and "so bad it is good" is still loved by many! 😊😎
@@attention5638 ALSO very true!
Picard meme for the win! ha!
That is one of the best ones 😅
You have just explained part of why I stopped reviewing books with a structured rating system. Objectively we can say a book is art, just like fast food is food, but subjectively good or bad depends on the individual. It’s funny that you bring up twilight and then later brought up the concept of time. 100 years from now, based on the values of society, Twilight could be like the Mona Lisa. 😂🤣 There really is no telling what will happen in the future! Though I hope that this piece of literature will not be taught in my grandchildren’s schools. Hahaha
Morning, Sam.😀
@@stevencorey1278 Hi Steven, hope you have a good day!
@@GreenerSideOfSam any day Lisa is not chewing my butt out is bound to be a good day! Thanks.😀
@@stevencorey1278 oh goodness 😅😂
Oh, I have a feeling Twilight will not make it to the status of the Mona Lisa haha. I think we are safe on that. And yeah, that is why I don't do the star system. Each star means something different to everyone, so one person's 3 star novel is another person's 1 star, but they feel the same about the book. It is just that, some people would say 3 stars is a bad book, where others say it is good. It is a strange way to rate haha
Neat background music.
I don't wake up screaming about it or anything, but I love Shakespeare and am also aware that he was not the best writer of his era: merely one of those popular enough to have staying power (and not get his arse killed young like Milton).
Is that ever a confounding factor in what makes old works "objectively" good?
Oh, I would say so, for sure! To what degree, I wouldn't know, but there does seem to be so many things that come into play, one could make a list that would go on for pages haha😅
Gosh, what a complex discussion. I'm not sure where my opinion is on this topic. I agree with your that consensus does not directly coincide with objective value. Saying that, I admit to listening to consensus frequently when it comes to choosing what I read, so in that sense I think popularity does play a role in putting value on something (a.k.a., the time I give to certain books). Not even sure if that makes sense, but I agree that consensus should not be the deciding factor in deciding the value of anything.
That is a really good point. Time is valuable, and if one puts that time in a book that they read because of the hype surrounding it, does it then add value to the book? 🤔 I may have to come back to this one haha
Only My opinion is correct about any type of Art. LoL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I totally disagree about the popularity of any Art is the example of How great any piece of Art is.
I believe Samuel Clemens said "You Will Never Go Broke Appealing 2 the Lowest Common Denominator ", or something like that. LoL. 😁 I'd have 2 Look it up, but that's close. 😁
Subjective...
It's kind of Like on My songs , and Instrumentals ...They are MY interpretations of the Books I read ...Doesn't mean what I hear , is what others would hear. It's subjective.
Great Job. Interesting, and Entertaining Video. 👍😁👍
I meant 2 ask who is playing in the background ??🤷♂️
The example of your musics is a really good one. Especially since they are interpretations of what you have read. It is one art form subjectively interpreting another art form. I will have to use this example in the future haha.
And I am actually not sure, but I do have to look it up and put it in the description. I just found a royalty free site and used it. I was going to play myself, but ran out of time haha😅
@@attention5638 that why I was asking. I thought maybe it was You my Friend 👍😁👍
I listened 3 times straining My ears 2 hear. 👍
Case in point: if we ever became popular, it would be an immediate refutation of the concept of that which is popular is good. Does that mean if we're unpopular overall, that must, too, be wrong? Thank you for using MacDonald's. If you had used Taco Bell I would have personally showed up in Canada with a pitchfork. I read at least the first Scythe. I'm glad it's popular in the sense that it can help younger individuals with important topics and methods for discussing certain topics. I'm way off-topic, of course. As usual. I need to focus. I think, therefore I subjugate. Wait, that isn't right.
I have often thought about that question, and I really don't know. I would guess it would have to be dependent on a few other this, like, why one is well known, and who the fanbase is. But! I can also say, I do not believe I have had Taco Bell before. I am not even sure if they are in Canada or not haha. SO I can't hate on them 😅
@@attention5638 I’m now occasionally sending you photos of my Taco Bell meals 😂 You can send me your Tim Horton photos 🤣
Hahaha I am at Tim's right now hahah shhh
Your videos remind me more than anything else that I’m really bad at just sitting and paying attention 😅 Not sure if you intended it when you picked the name, but they really do demand the viewer’s full attention!
Hahah well, I do hope it keeps one's attention! But the name is really just for the stupid pun 🤣😂
😅Paying attention is hard. My mind is constantly drifting. ... Oh look! A butterfly.
This topic is taking the booktube by storm. Loved this video 💜. That ending, though!! 😂
That is great! I have to check out other responses. The only other one I have seen is from Allen! Thanks for checking this out!😊
It’s an interesting discussion. Scholars would argue that Crime and Punishment is a greater work of art than Twilight, we take this council of the wise for granted. Should we reply on culture gatekeepers to discern what’s good from bad?
Yes! And that is one thing that can't be discounted, is the academy and what is placed in the canon. That could definitely be a measure if one wanted to use that!
Oooh, reviews vs statistics: subjective vs objective: dreamers vs calculators---> there's another Reality discussion for us. :P
😮😮 I like where this is going! Haha
So does that I usually don't like popular books mean, that I am able to judge them objectively or that I am only subjectively weird? I could live happily with both versions.
Maybe it is both things! That is even better! haha 😊😊
Interesting thoughts. However, you state as a given that in 100 years Crime and Punishment will be more popular than Scythe and that Tchaikovsky will be more popular than a current Top 40 song. Neither of those is necessarily true. Yes, the odds are in the classics favor. However, all works that are classics now were new at some point and over the course of time have displaced works that were classics when the works were released. Determining what will be regarded in the future as valuable is a fool's game because there is no way to determine what the values of the future will be. There's also the issue of what is "good". Fast food is "good" because it provides a relatively inexpensive meal that is relatively good tasting in a relatively timely fashion. If I value other things from my food, I will seek another type of food preparation.
Yes, agreed. That's why I said, "for arguments sake," and "I don't actually know that is true, but if history continues as it has." At least, I don't think I cut that out haha. I hope I kept that in, I will have to check. And yes, also agreed about "good" and "bad" being defined. That is what I was trying to get at when I defined "good" under a utilitarian approach--and if that is the case, then the top 40 actually is good. Without defining these terms, we couldn't really get anywhere.
Hey! I feel attacked re:Twilight 🧛🏿♀️😅 But for real this is interesting because good or bad is so slanted. You named western classical authors and musicians as possibly the ones that will be read and listened to in 100 years. There is a design to why we only continue reading and listening to these people, I'd say.. Myself and other people of color are starting to question the western Canon. Like why am I only reading old white men when there are the Toni Morrisons and Langston Hughes's of the world? I also just watched an adaption of a black man's Pulitzer prize winning book that I HATED. But the adaption was beautiful and in my opinion of much higher quality but it lost out on any emmys this weekend. So....🤷🏿♀️
Oh, I have no doubt that Morrison and Hughes will be read in 100 years as well, and will be, if not already, part of the canon. I just said the first things that came to mind haha. And I do think, a lot of what we consider classics will be changed in 100 years. The fiction that has been written in the last 50 years has made such an impact, I think the landscape will look much different, and include such authors as you mention.
Very good rebuttal to Knipp's video, which may have just been click candy. In your junk food comparison, popular books are in that same category imo. If someone always consumes junk food, what do they know about prime cuisine? Their palate is skewed. The same can be said for "popular" books. Can they be objective if that's all they read? I think not. Does that mean my opinion is skewed for thinking that? LOL
Yes! Exactly! There are so many reasons why popular opinion just doesn't work as a definitive measure for objective truth.
This was such a great response video, and I was creeped out by the idea of ignoring reviews altogether and looking at statistics. 😅 Not to say that reviews are completely disregarded, but marketing stats do influence much of what art is selling. My response on Evie’s video was that the test of time might be useful, but there are so many potentially valuable works that may become unknown in the first place due to marketing, timing, privilege, or a host of other variables. I loved the irony you pointed out at the end! 😁
Thank you so much, Johanna! And yes! I was going to mention that marketing played a major rule in what is popular today, but I thought, since it was mentioned in the original video, I would leave it be. There seems to be no end to the reasons on why popular opinion is just not a great measure on what is considered "good" or "bad" art. Hahah😅