mirosurabu

I've read your thread and concluded that it's not the same topic.

mirosurabu

You have to understand that subject and object are not independent entities -- they are intertwined. In other words, without object there is no subject and without subject there is no object.

"The way up and down is one and the same."
-- Heraclitus

So yeah, gravity IS subjective for without a subject there is nothing to observe it. Same for electricity and everything else.

You'd like to think so! But, in reality, the reason I lashed out at him is because he was rude. I do not communicate with rude people. You're an exception though because you are semi-rude and I'm in a very good mood right now.

Arya Stark

You're irrelevant.

Also, maybe the name of the thread should be changed then.

It's really saying "Why do we make fun of the music tastes of others."

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

Soulflower

Music is subjective but depending on the discussion it can also be objective. For instance, claiming some of the bands you mentioned are on the same level as Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd is objective (in my opinion) because there are legitimate reasons and facts that show otherwise. I dont think fanbases should attack other fanbases. Having debates and discussions are fun on message boards but people dont know how to disagree without being disrespectful and calling someone a "hater" which I find so immature because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

mirosurabu

Here's another interesting insight: when people talk about "subjectivity" and "objectivity" in relation to art they often talk about something different than what these words usually imply. Namely, in their vocabulary, the word "subjective" means "people are equal" and the word "objective" means "people are unequal". That's all there is to it! Obviously, when people say that music is "subjective" they don't mean that you can't rank it; rather, they want to say that you can only rank it for yourself. Whereas when people say that music is "objective" they mean that it can be ranked across everyone.

In reality, however, nothing is equal. Equality is merely a useful illusion (e.g. in mathematics and social relations.)

Similarly, the whole world is mental (i.e. subjective.) The so-called "objectivity" is merely a useful illusion.

duga

Did you just discover philosophy and now you think you know everything about it or something? Because you are misinterpreting a lot of what they were saying. In fact, a lot of the guys you mentioned were big proponents of science.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

mirosurabu

And what about you, dude? Did you just grow up on the Internet without any manners whatsoever? Don't you know HOW RUDE it is to behave like this?

What is this "a lot" you're talking about? If you're not going to bother providing any explanations then why post at all?

In fact, I myself am a big proponent of science. What now!?

Neapolitan

No it is subjective... believe me. Anyhow where's the proof? Please, could you provide some proof or copy and paste some article from a music critic who has made such a claim. And don't be a hatin' on me when I say this but imho Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are better and will always be better than the bands he mentioned.

__________________

Soulflower

LOL. I AGREE!!!

There are objective and legitimate reasons for why the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more legendary than the bands the OP mentioned.

That was my point I probably could have been more clearer lol.

I do think music is subjective as well but in a debate such as this for instance there are facts that show why those bands like Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more groundbreaking than bands like Nickleback etc.

Its okay for someone to like Nickleback but if someone is trying to argue that they are more iconic than the Rolling Stones for instance, someone could easily argue objective facts that show they are not. So depending on the discussion music can turn objective when necessary.

Music facts dont necessarily have to come from critics or magazines (which I think are the worse judges of music because they are driven by popularity and what sells most of the times anyway). I usually look at the impact and influence a artist or band as made on the current generation. Also if they made a significant impact on the progression of a certain genre or medium to determine how groundbreaking they are. A band like The Rolling Stones is the ideal rock band because most of the bands today model off of them. Its laughable to insist a band like Nickleback is more iconic when you can see some of the influence the Rolling Stones had on them and their generation. They dont have the same influence,credibility, impact, groundbreaking music and classics which is why they should not be mentioned in the same sentence with the Rolling Stones.

mirosurabu

Let's take this random quote from the Internet..

..and then change it a little to see how ridiculous it is:

Now, is this thing green or red? Who decides? A dichromat? Or a trichromat? I'll tell you who: the one who can perceive more nuances (i.e. the more complex observer, the trichromat.) Once again we can see how complexity rules the world.

There REALLY is no need to speak of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" when talking about art. Everything, literally everything, can be ranked, and everything, literally everything, is subjective (i.e. existing inside our minds) and necessarily, illusorily objective (i.e. existing outside of our minds.)