1–10 of 62 posts
I understand this kind of question is going to produce lots of different opinions. That's the idea.
It seems reasonable to me to say that he is a popular writer and subjectively good and that he is an objectively good speller.
Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective. Unless you hold as I do that popularity is similar enough to objectivity to qualify. The cultural or popular notion determine what is right regarding subjectively judged subjects. This notion, including the spelling and even usage of words, can change over time.
I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different. Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and the…
The "color" spelling is: (1) shorter: absence of the superfluous is better than its presence; (2) etymologically correct, since the Latin original is "color"; (3) closer to the spelling of the word's cognate in a bunch of languages: Spanish: color; Basque: kolore; Italian: colore; Polish: kolor.
For at least these three reasons, it can be regarded as correct.
English dialects that use "our" endings and whatnot should rid themselves of the baggage, except in the case of direct French loanwords like "velour", pronounced "..oor".
What's considered "good" also changes over time. "Earth is flat" was a "good" theory until people found out other possibilities, and so on.
If everyone agrees on what is being measured and how, then it should be easy to then do the measurements to get results. (who is best)
If the people involved in the comparison don't agree to a basis of measurement, then it's an exercise in futility and nothing more than an exchange of opinions.
Usain Bolt, Michael Jordan, objectively the best at what they do.
Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whose stories are enjoyed by millions of people, or a writer who is capable of supporting themselves financially by writing fiction.
One of the definitions of good is 'having the qualities required for a particular role', which is pretty explicit in requiring someone to establish criteria with which you judge something as 'good'.
I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different. Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and the…
The majority of Nazi Germany thought Nazi literature and art was good. Does that make nazi literature/art objectively good?
Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whose stories are enjoyed by millions of people, or a writer who is capable of supporting themselves financially by writing fiction. One of the definitions of good is 'having the qualities required for a particular role', which is pretty explicit in requiring someo…
I think my answer to the OPs question is "yes".. but, just as I'm doing here, there are always detractors, and digressions available in these discussions.