Everyone has a valid opinion/taste? Don't make me laugh

[Taerdin]

All I'm getting is you don't want to admit that some people may find interest in things you do not because of their lack of exposure.

All your post is doing is projecting. You seem to be angry at someone or people who act or have acted in this way in your life, and now instead of attempting to understand me you have plastered me with that classification in order to help you personally cope and move on with your life.

Or maybe I'm just projecting too. Who knows, communicating is hard enough when it isn't done solely through text.

I can admit that people find interest in things that I do not. I'm always trying to grow as a person and understand why people like things. I like to experience new things, expand my horizons and vary my tastes. My problem isn't largely that people like things that I don't, if you must know it's moreso that people disparage things that I like without even giving them a real chance.

But hey if it's easier for you to believe that I just think I'm above everyone else then do that thing. I'll probably never meet you in my life and it has no real affect on me in the long run

We were all new to "X" at one point and your continual exposure doesn't give you the right to be an ass and disprove anyone's opinion because they haven't done it as long as you have.

Of course having more experience doesn't give anyone the right to be an ass. But in general if you are new to something and there is someone more experience than you around to help you, do you not look to that more experienced person for help and guidance?

Also what's wrong with disproving someone's opinion? If you really like green jelly beans and then I made you try a blue one and you decided you liked the blue one's more, what travesty has been committed?

 

[Fraught]

And I don't get the African child argument. You're arguing about the validity of opinions but...the African child may like the shit steak, 'cause food is a biological necessity and whatnot, but...what? He can still think the steak you think is all "better" and "high-quality" is better than the one he's given. Doesn't mean you can ONLY like that which is the best. I really don't get the point of this, uhh, simile.

The point is this, without a point of reference on which to base your judgements of the quality of a steak, your opinion of that steak is less valid. While your first steak may seem amazing to you, it may or may not be the best steak out there, and to claim as such would be an invalid claim.

Now if you could theoretically taste every steak that exists, you would reach your own personal subjective truth about which steak is your personal favourite best steak.

Then theoretically if someone who had never eaten a steak before came to you and said, 'I've never had steak, but I like spicy foods, and I like... etc etc etc', and somehow transfer their exact subjective tastes to you, using your own experiences as a guideline your opinion would be very valid when it comes to leading them towards their subjective best most favourite steak.

I know there isn't one objective best steak that everyone loves the most. But there are some objective standards by which we judge steak. Someone who is well informed is more likely to have a more valid opinion on which are the best steaks than someone who has never tried a steak.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at now

Yeah, I guess in the sense of some people having "areas of expertise", there are more and less valid opinions.

 

[Vegosiux]

Of course having more experience doesn't give anyone the right to be an ass. But in general if you are new to something and there is someone more experience than you around to help you, do you not look to that more experienced person for help and guidance?

Why in the nine hells of Baator would one need help and guidance on what they themselves find good?

Also what's wrong with disproving someone's opinion? If you really like green jelly beans and then I made you try a blue one and you decided you liked the blue one's more, what travesty has been committed?

Shoving things down people's throat is wrong. Considering their opinion inferior to yours because they've been on the scene less time is wrong. And acting like deciding what games people should consider good is a field of expertise is just laughable.

They're called "opinions" for a reason and I do not think you actually understand what that word means.

When "expertise" comes in play, "opinions" fly out the window. You don't go to a doctor to hear his opinion on what's wrong with you. You don't bring your car to a mechanic to hear his opinion on what broke. You don't consult an expert for an opinion, you consult them for rational advice, backed up by their skills.

 

[DarkRyter]

You seem awfully closed minded.

And you seem awfully quick to judge, and perhaps equally as close minded.

Completely, no. But do good and bad performances not exist? If someone sings and misses all the notes is that just as good as someone who does? Whether or not there are completely objective measures of quality the fact remains that there are some objective measures of quality that are recognized by a large number of people.

You can study a medium. Mediums do have standards. There are times when a shot calls for a wide angle lens, or a more upbeat music track. Just because these standards aren't completely universal or agreed upon doesn't mean they don't exist or are useless.

If you could explain the logic of this, or argue it in any way that would be helpful. Just stating it doesn't quite cut it for me.

I will humour you though. If this were true then why doesn't the Escapist/IGN/Gamespot/etc. have reviews like that? I liked the font of the credits, 4.5/5 stars. Is there really no standard by which to judge things?

If someone did post a review like that would it really be just as valid as a three page summary with in-depth analysis of all aspects of the game? That's really what you believe? Can you help me understand why you believe that? Just stating it like it's an obvious indisputable fact doesn't help anyone understand you, nor does it make you look any less close minded.

Ask the font guy. Maybe he really digs fonts or something. There's really no explanation he could give or anyone can give to truly justify this opinion or any other as being valid.

Recognition by a large amount of people does not immediately make a standard worthwhile. "Most people generally agree that having an engaging story is a positive quality a game can have" is truth. But "Engaging Story = Good game" cannot be proven. Nor can "Engaging Story CAN = Good Game". Nor "Hit every note = Good Singing" or "Miss every note = bad singing".

No one can really define "good game". Not in a way that's 100% true, nothing's true. At least within the realm of judging quality. The (In my opinion, which is worthless) best definition I could ever internalize is "A game is good if I feel good playing it". It's not something I can argue for, or anyone else can really argue against. Is it right? Is it wrong? No one can really answer that.

No element, no matter how accepted or natural it may seem is intrinsically a positive quality.

People can go on length about why how they feel about something is the "right" way to feel. And people will read them thinking that they might feel the same way. And a great deal of those arguments involve facts. No one can argue that Skyrim isn't on the PC or that Minecraft doesn't involve blocks.

Games, books, tv, music, and other media are art. Opinions are meant to be valid or invalid. They're opinions, so closely tied to point of view that any idea of "accuracy" is thrown out the window. Otherwise, they wouldn't be opinions, they'd be measurements.

 

[Taerdin]

You accuse me of projecting onto you then do the same to me, if you plan to take a high ground don't sink to the others level.

You're projecting again. My plan wasn't to take any high ground, rather to attempt to foster some understanding between us. I find it's easier to understand someone when you're on the same level

You claim that people have no valid opinion until they've been around for an unspecified amount of time or have less of an opinion compared to someone who has been doing "X" longer.

Not exactly, but close enough I guess. If someone hasn't experienced something then their opinion is less valid than someone who has, unless the one who has no experience with that thing has compelling arguments or evidence otherwise.

But let's go back to your steak example on the first page you mention about how you may like the meat. If I've only had a handful of steaks in my life but I prefer mine well done am I any more wrong then someone who eats steak every week and prefers their steak rare?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you had no knowledge of steak, and then someone else had tons of knowledge of steak, the person with tons of knowledge would probably have a more valid opinion on which is a good steak. It's not an absolute, there are no absolutes.

I understand that you may like your steak a particular way, but the more steaks you eat the closer you get to finding out the best possible subjective truth for how you like your steak. The more you know about steaks the more likely you are to be able to help someone else explore steaks and then find their absolute best subjective truth.

But you also bring up a nuclear meltdown and compare an untrained plebe with an experienced veteran. You're mixing personal taste with rational thought and expecting the same answer, do you not see the problem with that?

I don't see a problem with using analogies to demonstrate the value of experience and how we as a society look to more experienced people in order to get more valid opinions on what is the best solution.

You act like preventing a nuclear meltdown is completely objective. All we can do as people is look at the symptoms of a problem and use our best knowledge to attempt to fix the problem. If you can't fully analyse a problem you can't know for sure what the objective best solution is. Even if you could fully analyse it, your analysis could be flawed.

 

[Taerdin]

Why in the nine hells of Baator would one need help and guidance on what they themselves find good?

I've discovered plenty of things that I find to be fantastic through friends and other people who have more experience with those things. Have you really never heard of a band you love through someone else or something similar? I kinda find that hard to believe.

Shoving things down people's throat is wrong. Considering their opinion inferior to yours because they've been on the scene less time is wrong.

I 100% agree with you. Even if someone's experience is lesser if they can make good arguments for it then of course they should be listened to. I'm not making absolute arguments here, that would just be silly.

And acting like deciding what games people should consider good is a field of expertise is just laughable.

I agree too. I'm not arguing that someone with more expertise in games can tell everyone what they should believe is the best game ever (although we already have GOTY awards so take that up with them).

What I'm arguing is that someone who has experienced more games is more likely to have a more valid informed opinion on what a good game is, either for themselves or in the case of having sufficient information on what someone else's subjective tastes are, for other people as well. This 'good' game is not one objective truth, it is subjective and different for each person.

They're called "opinions" for a reason and I do not think you actually understand what that word means.

An opinion is based on personal experience and fact. For instance if a doctor sees certain symptoms he knows from his experience and/or medical texts that it could likely be illness X. Or if I have a wide knowledge of jazz music and you give me a good idea of what kind of bands and styles you like, I could suggest band Y which seems to fit your tastes as I understand them.

When "expertise" comes in play, "opinions" fly out the window. You don't go to a doctor to hear his opinion on what's wrong with you. You don't bring your car to a mechanic to hear his opinion on what broke. You don't consult an expert for an opinion, you consult them for rational advice, backed up by their skills.

Actually you do. A doctor never really knows 100% sure what is wrong with you. He bases his opinion on his experience and facts he learned from his medical text. If you think the doctor's opinion is wrong, you go and get a Second Opinion (I hope you have heard that term before, it's widely used).

To claim that a Doctor acts on anything aside from their best guess is what's really laughable here, imo.

 

[Vegosiux]

When "expertise" comes in play, "opinions" fly out the window. You don't go to a doctor to hear his opinion on what's wrong with you. You don't bring your car to a mechanic to hear his opinion on what broke. You don't consult an expert for an opinion, you consult them for rational advice, backed up by their skills.

Actually you do. A doctor never really knows 100% sure what is wrong with you. He bases his opinion on his experience and facts he learned from his medical text.[/quote]

Oh, that's true. But they have a much better idea about it, and what they're stating in the end is not an opinion, but an educated guess.

If you think the doctor's opinion is wrong, you go and get a Second Opinion (I hope you have heard that term before, it's widely used).

So predictable. Especially the part where you delivered the line in such a manner. Think I used a doctor as an example randomly?

To claim that a Doctor acts on anything aside from their best guess is what's really laughable here, imo.

So "opinion" suddenly became the same as "educated guess"? Uhm...how about no.

What game is the best game ever is an opinion, and every one of those is as valid as the next. What I'm suffering from, considering my symptoms, is an educated guess, and people in the field will naturally make a more accurate one than a layman.

 

[Taerdin]

Games, books, tv, music, and other media are art. Opinions are meant to be valid or invalid. They're opinions, so closely tied to point of view that any idea of "accuracy" is thrown out the window. Otherwise, they wouldn't be opinions, they'd be measurements.

You don't think opinions have accuracy? So if I say that my favourite place to play tennis is New York, even though I've never played tennis nor been to New York, that opinion is not inaccurate or invalid?

If I say that my favourite place to eat Thai food is Thai Express, and that's the only place I've ever eaten Thai food, that's not inaccurate or invalid? What if there exists over a dozen better places that I would like to eat Thai food more if I tried them?

Would my opinion not become more valid/accurate/true the more things I try? Would I not be learning more and more about what I actually like in that area, and forming a more informed more accurate opinion?

Oh, that's true. But they have a much better idea about it, and what they're stating in the end is not an opinion, but an educated guess.

Are you trying to say that a person's opinion is not informed by their own experience? What they're stating in the end is both an educated guess AND an opinion. Just like if I say my favourite game of last year is Portal 2 it is an educated guess and an opinion. I didn't play all the games last year, but based on my knowledge of which games I did play my opinion is thus.

So "opinion" suddenly became the same as "educated guess"? Uhm...how about no.

What game is the best game ever is an opinion, and every one of those is as valid as the next. What I'm suffering from, considering my symptoms, is an educated guess, and people in the field will naturally make a more accurate one than a layman.

How about yes! (compelling counter argument, I know!)

What game is the best game ever for me is an opinion and it is informed by my experiences. I have only played a certain percentage of all games. The more games I play the more accurate my opinion is on which game is my own personal best most favourite game.

If I had played all the shooters in the world and someone asked me for advice for a new shooter to play and gave me a list of criteria, and an understanding of their taste, I could prescribe a particular game that I feel fits what they are looking for, much how a doctor could use his knowledge and your description of your symptoms to provide you with a medical treatment. I fail to see how these to things are SO different.

If someone who has never played a shooter or has only played one tried to help you, they would be less likely to have a valid informed helpful suggestion. Much like someone who is not a doctor trying to treat you.

Starting from the steak, that is what you're saying; you're saying experience trumps valid opinions/tastes.

That is absolutely not what I'm saying. Am I being strawmanned? On the internet of all places? I never!

How a person enjoys their food is their personal taste and opinion, why should they latch on to someone and be told what is better? A personal taste is exactly that; I can try two different steaks both cooked the same but from different eateries. There's a good chance that one place will cook their steak differently and will taste better to me. Now if I wanted steak I would probably go to the better place that I enjoy. Just because I eat more steak than someone else doesn't mean I have a more valid opinion. If I had a friend over and we wanted to go out for steaks and I took him to my favorite steak shop and he ordered steak the way he likes it cooked, but didn't like how it tasted; he is not wrong and I am not right just because I eat more steak then he does. You use things like subjective truths which are exactly that.

I'm not saying that if you eat more steaks and then give someone advice and it doesn't work out that that person is wrong! That's so silly to even suggest that I'm suggesting. I think you're just trivialising my arguments on purpose...

What I am saying is that if your friend could give you an accurate picture of what he likes, and you had a lot of experience with different steaks, your opinion of which steak he might like would be more valid/informed than someone who has never tried a steak.

If you really want to expand your horizons I'd suggest using a dictionary before you throw words around.

Talking down to me is helpful to anyone how?

Now the problem with steaks and nuclear meltdowns is that the comparison is apples and oranges. You're blurring the lines of personal taste and professional experience. I wouldn't want someone with 20 years of accounting experience working at a 5 star restaurant the same way I wouldn't want an untrained plebe trying to stop a meltdown. The accountant would probably fuck up the steak the same way the untrained plebe would fuck up stopping the meltdown. If you can't see the fine line than you should seek guidance from someone with more experience at explaining things Barney style.

I don't even understand what you don't understand about my comparison here. The point I was making is that more experience generally means more knowledgeable on that subject. More knowledgable people are more likely to have opinions worth listening to, whether that be an opinion on how to prevent a meltdown or how you might like your steak. Please explain how this doesn't make sense to you.

Also please don't patronise me.

 

[DarkRyter]

Games, books, tv, music, and other media are art. Opinions are meant to be valid or invalid. They're opinions, so closely tied to point of view that any idea of "accuracy" is thrown out the window. Otherwise, they wouldn't be opinions, they'd be measurements.

You don't think opinions have accuracy? So if I say that my favourite place to play tennis is New York, even though I've never played tennis nor been to New York, that opinion is not inaccurate or invalid?

If I say that my favourite place to eat Thai food is Thai Express, and that's the only place I've ever eaten Thai food, that's not inaccurate or invalid? What if there exists over a dozen better places that I would like to eat Thai food more if I tried them?

Would my opinion not become more valid/accurate/true the more things I try? Would I not be learning more and more about what I actually like in that area, and forming a more informed more accurate opinion?

Whether or not you have or haven't played tennis in New York has no logical connection with whether New York is a good place to play tennis. It is impossible to know whether New York is a "good" place to play tennis.

An individual's understanding of something has no bearing on the validity of what they say.

If an idiot said 2 + 2 = 4, he would be just as accurate as a mathematics professor stating the same. It doesn't matter who's saying it, what they've done before saying it, or even whether they really understand what they're saying. 2 + 2 = 4.

On the subject of judging quality, there is no "this game = good", or "this steak = bad". "Good" ,"Bad", "Better", and "Worse" simply do not exist the way "Red", "7 inches", "Composed of Hydrogen and Carbon", and "Located in Alabama" do.

Acclaimed Movie Critic Roger Ebert and Paris Hilton can go on and on about whether Shrek 4 is good or bad, but for all his years of experience, expertise, and understanding, Roger Ebert isn't anywhere closer to any kind of "truth" then some vapid heiress.

 

[Taerdin]

Whether or not you have or haven't played tennis in New York has no logical connection with whether New York is a good place to play tennis. It is impossible to know whether New York is a "good" place to play tennis.

That's not what I said. I said that if I said it was my FAVOURITE place, not a GOOD place.

An individual's understanding of something has no bearing on the validity of what they say.

No bearing? None at all? So someone who fully understands something in your mind is just as likely to be right as someone who knows nothing about it?

Are you just being difficult on purpose?

If an idiot said 2 + 2 = 4, he would be just as accurate as a mathematics professor stating the same. It doesn't matter who's saying it, what they've done before saying it, or even whether they really understand what they're saying. 2 + 2 = 4.

100% agree. I wasn't arguing otherwise. My argument is simply thus. If a math problem is presented, and an idiot and a math professor both propose a solution based on their personal experience, the professor is more likely to be correct. The idiot COULD be correct. The professor COULD be wrong. But overall, the opinion of a math professor on math problems is more valid than an idiots.

On the subject of judging quality, there is no "this game = good", or "this steak = bad". "Good" ,"Bad", "Better", and "Worse" simply do not exist the way "Red", "7 inches", "Composed of Hydrogen and Carbon", and "Located in Alabama" do.

I was not arguing this either! I feel like a scarecrow all of a sudden.

There is 'this game = good' on a personal level. I think this game is good. That to me is just as real and legitimate as a measurement on a personal level, because it is proven and true and cannot be disproven by anyone who is not me that I think that game is good.

BUT the more things I try the more my opinion gets informed. I may still think that game is good, but I may find other games that I think are better. That is what I am saying.

Acclaimed Movie Critic Roger Ebert and Paris Hilton can go on and on about whether Shrek 4 is good or bad, but for all his years of experience, expertise, and understanding, Roger Ebert isn't anywhere closer to any kind of "truth" then some vapid heiress.

He could be, depending on your perspective. If you are also a vapid heiress then maybe Paris Hilton's opinion could be closer to your personal truth than Ebert's. But overall Ebert has more experience judging and analysing movies, so he would be more likely to offer a helpful/valid/informed opinion on a 'good' movie if he could somehow fully understand your tastes.

__________________________________________________________________ DIVIDER BETWEEN RESPONSES

I only talk down to people who use big words but have bad spelling and refuse to acknowledge what words mean.

I've written like 20 posts in this thread, I'm bound to make a few errors. Sorry if I don't measure up to your standard.

If you only play tennis at one place and it's your favorite you are not wrong

That wasn't my example. You are misrepresenting my arguments and putting words in my mouth. I said if I had never played tennis nor been to New York and said that New York was my favourite place to play tennis would that still be an accurate valid opinion?

Please if you're going to talk down to me about my odd spelling error at least possess basic reading comprehension.

if you eat Thai food at only place and it's your favorite you are not wrong, your opinion is exactly that and even though people may disagree with you, you are not wrong. You will be more informed if you shop around for your sports and food, but if you have a favorite then it's your favorite unless you don't feel comfortable in your decision and that's on you but you are still not wrong.

I'm not sure if I actually said anything about being wrong. I'm pretty sure I was just saying less valid informed or accurate. If you have only tried one thai restaurant and claim that it is the best one, even though there are more out there that you would like more if you did try them, isn't that an uninformed or less valid opinion?

The fun thing about informed opinions it that they are exactly that, I have played plenty of shooters but I find F.E.A.R. 2 to be my favorite. Not many people will agree with me but I know what I like and therefore I am not wrong.

You are right about what your favorite shooter is. But your opinion is still not as informed or accurate as it could be. The more shooters you play the more you will know about what you like and how games measure up to your standards. You may find that FEAR 2 remains your favourite, or that you find a new favorite. The more experience you have the more correct you are about which shooter is your favourite out of the set of all shooters that exist.

I'll reiterate it again; you're saying someone's opinion is less than then opinion of another if they lack the exposure of the other.

Yes. If someone has never eaten a steak, and another man had eaten every steak on Earth, I would ask the man with full knowledge over the man with no knowledge on suggestions for steak. I fail to see how this is not a reasonable decision.

Now your comparison of meltdowns and steaks... if you're going to draw a comparison the two subjects should have a middle ground. If your point is that people with more experience should be looked to then I agree, but only in the professional experience way. I don't need a someone with a subjective opinion telling me what's good to eat, a good movie to watch or a fun game to play; I can experiment, be adventurous and formulate my own opinion which you're free to disagree with. Now if your point is to make that more experience means more knowledge then I'll say welcome to common sense.

You don't need their opinion. You can experiment be adventurous and formulate yor own opinion. I agree. But the same goes for professional expertise as well. You could experiment with fixing a car, you can be adventurous. The option to go it alone is always your own, but some people still ask for suggestions or help at times, and when they do they tend to ask someone they think is experienced in that area.

Let me say it in clear English, learn the difference between professional experience and subjective opinions.

Let me say this in clear English, learn the difference between what you think someone said based on your own biases and projections, and what they actually said.

 

[DarkRyter]

Whether or not you have or haven't played tennis in New York has no logical connection with whether New York is a good place to play tennis. It is impossible to know whether New York is a "good" place to play tennis.

That's not what I said. I said that if I said it was my FAVOURITE place, not a GOOD place.

An individual's understanding of something has no bearing on the validity of what they say.

No bearing? None at all? So someone who fully understands something in your mind is just as likely to be right as someone who knows nothing about it?

Are you just being difficult on purpose?

If an idiot said 2 + 2 = 4, he would be just as accurate as a mathematics professor stating the same. It doesn't matter who's saying it, what they've done before saying it, or even whether they really understand what they're saying. 2 + 2 = 4.

100% agree. I wasn't arguing otherwise. My argument is simply thus. If a math problem is presented, and an idiot and a math professor both propose a solution based on their personal experience, the professor is more likely to be correct. The idiot COULD be correct. The professor COULD be wrong. But overall, the opinion of a math professor on math problems is more valid than an idiots.

On the subject of judging quality, there is no "this game = good", or "this steak = bad". "Good" ,"Bad", "Better", and "Worse" simply do not exist the way "Red", "7 inches", "Composed of Hydrogen and Carbon", and "Located in Alabama" do.

I was not arguing this either! I feel like a scarecrow all of a sudden.

There is 'this game = good' on a personal level. I think this game is good. That to me is just as real and legitimate as a measurement on a personal level, because it is proven and true and cannot be disproven by anyone who is not me that I think that game is good.

BUT the more things I try the more my opinion gets informed. I may still think that game is good, but I may find other games that I think are better. That is what I am saying.

Acclaimed Movie Critic Roger Ebert and Paris Hilton can go on and on about whether Shrek 4 is good or bad, but for all his years of experience, expertise, and understanding, Roger Ebert isn't anywhere closer to any kind of "truth" then some vapid heiress.

He could be, depending on your perspective. If you are also a vapid heiress then maybe Paris Hilton's opinion could be closer to your personal truth than Ebert's. But overall Ebert has more experience judging and analysing movies, so he would be more likely to offer a helpful/valid/informed opinion on a 'good' movie if he could somehow fully understand your tastes.

Okay, let's reword this a bit.

Concerning opinions, individual's understanding of something has no bearing on the validity of what they say.

As the very nature of it being an opinion, it can't be valid or invalid. For one opinion to be more valid than another, it must be closer to some kind of truth. And when discerning an abstract concept such as "quality of a video game", there is no truth.

You mention personal truths as being a measure of validity, but that's shaky ground.

Subjective Opinion Can Not Equal Objective Truth. I don't know whether a game is good. You don't know whether a game is good, even if you played it a bajillion times and played a bunch of other games. Font guy doesn't know whether a game is good. Good doesn't exist.

You say "Game = Good" exists to you on a personal level. But that's it, personal. Your experiences, understandings, and viewpoints affect that.

Subjective Opinion CAN EQUAL Your personal truth, or anyone else's personal truth.

That doesn't make an opinion valid or invalid.

Mr. Ebert could know me inside out. He could definitely know what movies I think are good, and movies I think are bad and he could understand exactly why I like movie A and hate movie B.

What makes his opinion valid though, is whether he can tell if movie A is good or bad. Ebert can easily say Movie A is good FOR HIM or Movie B is bad FOR YOU.

But he cannot say "Movie A is good" with genuine truth, without any sort of subjectivity or perspective. Because good isn't real. Maybe to you and me and him and font guy. But that doesn't make good real.

 

[Taerdin]

Thread be done, thanks for comin out

Feel free to read and catch up if you wish, but responding to the OP at this point would be pointless (we're beyond it now)

Bu...but...but I was gonna AGREE with you!!

Seriously I had a whole rant about AMY lined up and everything!

Its a free forum, I'm by no means stopping you from posting your rant.

If you want it to get more attention you could try starting your own thread.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Well. Here's an analogy for opinions. Each of our minds is a person trapped in a box. What is put into the box with us is our experiences. We do not know what the others trapped in their boxes will do with what was put into their boxes. When we engage in social activity it is like the persons in those boxes are released temporarily to compare and contrast their feelings towards the items placed in their boxes.

Conclusion: We may truly never understand the definitive version of what we experience, but it is because we try to that makes these debates interesting.

Also: Besides, the only things that are fact in this universe is what exists and what has been proven, so really, we are all both wrong (because we have no physical evidence to justify what is good or bad) and right (because reality is relative to how a person sees it, like my analogy involving the box) about our opinions.

 

[dobahci]

But he cannot say "Movie A is good" with genuine truth, without any sort of subjectivity or perspective. Because good isn't real. Maybe to you and me and him and font guy. But that doesn't make good real.

Sure, to some extent you can say that "good" is just a matter of subjective definition, but that would be a truism and you'd accomplish nothing by saying it.

While no person can say that a certain movie or game or whatever is "good" with some sense of Absolute Truth, what you CAN judge is whether it adheres to certain principles of good design or good art. Exactly what those principles should be is debatable. But if you were to take two steaks and say that you think Steak A is delicious and Steak B tastes lousy, then, yes, while to some extent that is just a matter of subjective taste, there is also a certain standard you're already judging the stakes by on a subconscious level. In your mind, there is a certain quality in the steak that you are looking for. It is a quality on which Steak A delivers beautifully, and Steak B falters. By analyzing the quality you look for in a steak, you can, to some extent, speak objectively about subjective taste.

And if you come to discuss the issue with other people and find that they too seek the same quality in a steak, then you can establish that as a sort of guideline by which to judge it. That doesn't mean that your guideline will be Absolutely True, but it serves as a useful point of comparison.

Honestly, there are different philosophies of criticism, but I won't really get into that. I do however think that it's good and constructive to have discussions over things being "good" or "bad", and the more we have of it, the better, as long as it's based on actual thought and reason rather than just rabid fanboyism. Just because there's no Absolute Truth about it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it and argue about it! We all have our own reasons for liking and disliking certain things, and understanding those reasons, those subjective and relatively random differences between people, is fascinating.

There's nothing more insipid or annoying than a person who kills an interesting argument by bleating "THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!"