Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UXLZ]

^

Pretty much that. If you want to try and talk about things objectively then it needs to be given a specific quantifier and context. An anime can be objectively more colorful (as in, have a wider color spectrum/implementation of the color spectrum), or objectively higher 'quality' (if we're talking about resolution), but there's no such thing as 'objectively good' because good is inherently subjective. I mean, someone can be objectively more capable of playing technically difficult piano skills, but that doesn't mean they're an objectively better piano player, if that makes any sense? (Because how well someone can play an instrument is a measure of a multitude of things, some which are hard to quantify.)

[Neonivek]

So I am watching "My Love Story"

And I always suspected this... but with each episode that passes I think the "Girlfriend" is less and less important.

That the anime is actually about the friendship between the two male leads.

Either that or it alternates between them.

[Tellemurius]

So I am watching "My Love Story"

And I always suspected this... but with each episode that passes I think the "Girlfriend" is less and less important.

That the anime is actually about the friendship between the two male leads.

Either that or it alternates between them.

Little bit of both, I enjoy reading the manga

[IronyOwl]

^

Pretty much that. If you want to try and talk about things objectively then it needs to be given a specific quantifier and context. An anime can be objectively more colorful (as in, have a wider color spectrum/implementation of the color spectrum), or objectively higher 'quality' (if we're talking about resolution), but there's no such thing as 'objectively good' because good is inherently subjective. I mean, someone can be objectively more capable of playing technically difficult piano skills, but that doesn't mean they're an objectively better piano player, if that makes any sense? (Because how well someone can play an instrument is a measure of a multitude of things, some which are hard to quantify.)

Yeah, this. You can argue that certain arbitrary metrics produce an objectively better, also arbitrarily defined item than certain other metrics, but the claims themselves aren't any more objective than any other claims.

That said, I think part of the issue is that even though quality is entirely subjective, at some point it stops being useful to mention that, because the niche for Thing A being better than Thing B narrows down to almost nothing. A sledgehammer to the kneecaps isn't objectively any better or worse than a nice massage, but pointing that fact out is usually a quibbling issue of semantics.

As with any concession to convenience, of course, we start to run into issues around the edges, which I suspect is where a lot of this type of stuff comes from.

[Hawkfrost]

A sledgehammer to the kneecaps isn't objectively any better or worse than a nice massage, but pointing that fact out is usually a quibbling issue of semantics.

I've been trying to understand this sentence for the last five minutes and am coming up blank. The objective aim of life, any life form, is to be successful; taking a sledgehammer to the kneecaps I would think to be directly contrary to your ability to do well, thus why we feel pain at all.

I will agree that quality is always a contextual comparison, there is no universal blanket you can use to judge all cases in a vacuum. But I steadfast do not believe that all concepts of quality are just a whim of the mind and according to the person as they feel fit. My doodling from kindergarten are not better than my drawings now, and anyone who would consider them such is a person who does not actually understand the process of visual art and can't be considered an authority to judge it.

[IronyOwl]

A sledgehammer to the kneecaps isn't objectively any better or worse than a nice massage, but pointing that fact out is usually a quibbling issue of semantics.

I've been trying to understand this sentence for the last five minutes and am coming up blank. The objective aim of life, any life form, is to be successful; taking a sledgehammer to the kneecaps I would think to be directly contrary to your ability to do well, thus why we feel pain at all.

Define "objective," "aim," "life," "form," "successful," and "pain."

Less semantically, there's no particular reason survival, lack of damage, reproduction, etc are "objective" goals or metrics just because they're common or even theoretically ubiquitous amongst a certain class of things. There are decent arguments you can make for assigning them into those things as a matter of convenience, ie most life wants to not be injured most of the time, so we might as well call it "bad" as though they're the same thing 100%. But like any shortcut it starts to break down when you look at it too closely or from the wrong angle.

For instance, we could just look at opposing goals. Say you have roaches in your home. You don't want them there. They want them there. Is murdering them all with insecticide objectively good or bad? Presumably it's bad for them, and you claim it's good for you but we haven't defined "successful" well enough to know if that's objectively true or not... but unless we can say it's objectively bad for you as well, we can't say the insecticide is objectively good or bad, only objectively good or bad from a certain perspective- which is to say, subjective.

It gets worse when you start throwing in any variety whatsoever in the individuals in question, because then you lose even that. Maybe some people likes roaches! Maybe some roaches don't want to live any more! Now you can't even say they're objective from given angles, or rather, you have to acknowledge their "objective" angles are even narrower than you thought.

All of which boils down to my original point that nothing is objective, but some things are safer than others to call objective as a matter of expediency. Sledgehammer to your kneecaps will be bad the vast majority of the time, hard drugs will be bad most of the time, differing career qualities will be totally subjective, chocolate will be good most of the time assuming you're human and not watching your weight/teeth, so on and so forth. None of it's objective, but some of it lends itself to being called as much better than others, especially in the right context.

I will agree that quality is always a contextual comparison, there is no universal blanket you can use to judge all cases in a vacuum. But I steadfast do not believe that all concepts of quality are just a whim of the mind and according to the person as they feel fit. My doodling from kindergarten are not better than my drawings now, and anyone who would consider them such is a person who does not actually understand the process of visual art and can't be considered an authority to judge it.

Good example of the above in action. "Everyone would agree on this, and if they don't they're unqualified to judge it in the same manner that everyone else is." Which is basically just a tautological assertion that your current drawings are better than your former drawings, by the metrics of the group you'd consider relevant to judging this particular scenario.

Meaning subjectively unanimous in such a way that you feel confident calling it objective without too many issues. It's a useful designation, but it gets dangerous when you start forgetting that it's a designation, not an inherent facet of reality.

[Andres]

To be honest, I didn't really enjoy the fight scenes in Bleach up until the last season. Until then, it seemed less like they were fighting and more like they were showcasing their abilities over and over until one of them dropped dead. The one exception was Hollow Ichigo who was freaking awesome. He actually used Zangetsu properly, unlike Ichigo who just uses it like any other sword. Seriously, compare Ichigo's fighting style versus Hollow Ichigo's fighting style.

[Hawkfrost]

A lot of stuff.

You're right, but I'm more meaning it in a less entirely exact way and more in a conceptually useful way for life.
At some point you have to put the limiters on, to make a term like that actually usable instead of being an infinitely vague idea.

[IronyOwl]

A lot of stuff.

You're right, but I'm more meaning it in a less entirely exact way and more in a conceptually useful way for life.
At some point you have to put the limiters on, to make a term like that actually usable instead of being an infinitely vague idea.

For that you're entirely right; hence the "quibbling issue of semantics" in the original quote. I didn't mean to imply it was an important concept in its own corner, just that it tended to bleed into other things unexpectedly. Sledgehammers to the knees and boring MC gets a magical harem anime are both objectively terrible, but then the latter proves really enjoyable for a lot of people and you start getting weird issues trying to rationalize those two facts out.

The sledgehammers remain academic.

It does kinda step up after the halfway mark. But overall I didn't enjoy Yuki Yuna. Poor man's Madoka.

So having finally finished Yuki Yuna is a Hero, I can definitely see what you meant with this. It had a ton of interesting concepts, so I'm glad I watched it, but it really felt like they couldn't make up their mind what kind of show they wanted to make.

Spoiler: Major Spoilers (click to show/hide)

So they settled on putting a Cute Girls Doing Cute Things show in a really dark world, throw in some tragedy, and then deus ex'd the ending without really explaining anything.

Still enjoyed it, but yeah.

[Neonivek]

You know...

Listening to the clip and how Orihime is saying how Ichigo wouldn't say he is going to win as a way to hype himself up...

Makes me kind of realize how boring it makes Ichigo sound... Like he is a Mary Sue character who only loses when the plot says he needs to... like he sort of lacks a personality beyond pissed, sympathetic, and stoic.

[Frumple]

... Ichigo is like the posterboy for mary sue, isn't he? Like... entirely. One of the more recent-ish examples that hits pretty much every point right on the head. It's not "like" he is one. He is one.

[Neonivek]

Also was Orihime disabled or depowered in this?

She seems to have forgotten she has the ultimate shield, the ultimate heal, and the ultimate attack.

Or did they depower her abilities further to make them less potent later?

Edit: NEVERMIND she is just a flippin moron and has suffered from "I am woman in an anime" syndrome... Honestly she had to be told to protect herself?

[Andres]

You know...

Listening to the clip and how Orihime is saying how Ichigo wouldn't say he is going to win as a way to hype himself up...

Makes me kind of realize how boring it makes Ichigo sound... Like he is a Mary Sue character who only loses when the plot says he needs to... like he sort of lacks a personality beyond pissed, sympathetic, and stoic.

Most of the characters in Bleach have barely more than three emotions, sometimes less. One of the reasons I like Ginjo is that he's pretty much the only 3-dimensional character in all of Bleach. He's less an archetype and more a person.

Also was Orihime disabled or depowered in this?

She seems to have forgotten she has the ultimate shield, the ultimate heal, and the ultimate attack.

Or did they depower her abilities further to make them less potent later?

It was implied that she'd been psychologically tortured ever since she arrived in Las Noches (a few months, I think) so not only would she be more emotionally fragile, her powers would probably suffer as a result too.

[UXLZ]

... Doesn't her 'ultimate attack' get destroyed at one point by someone?

[Neonivek]

... Doesn't her 'ultimate attack' get destroyed at one point by someone?

Once early in the series.

Ok I don't think ANY character... any female character... has ever been hit harder by the "female incompetence" virus harder then Orihime... Didn't she used to be combat trained?

I bet it was a slow slide... but I just started watching this fight after I stopped watching after the Bount Arc... So it is like "Ohh she was rough around the edges but she was still learning her stuff" to "How do shields work?"