In philosophy, as far as they've been found meaningful/good to use, the terms subjective and objective have been defined 

something like this:

subjective - relating to an object as it exists in the mind, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself) 

https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/" rel="nofollow - )

Edit:

objective - 1. possessing general validity, or 2. related to reality as it supposes to be outside the human mind 

I hope you'll find this thread interesting! 

I better tell that I've edited my OP to this:

"or 2 . objectivity - the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, 

Wikipedia defines "subjective" and "objective" in this way:

Kees already alludes to this: The major problem with the concept of objectivity is that to the extent that it refers to anything independent of (individual) mind and perception, mind and perception can never secure objectivity, because it is out of their reach. And if individual minds can't access it, neither can society.

Philosophers and others have discussed objectivity a lot and have come up with ideas about objectivity that refer to something that mind and language can grasp more easily. All these are controversial though, none is without problems. Here are a few: You could call "objective" statements/facts/truths that can be arrived at on the basis of "logical necessities"/formalised logical rules such as mathematical truths (these usually are consequences of premises that themselves can be questioned). You could generally refer to "playing by the rules" within a formal system as "objectively correct", which would then be relative to the rules of course (note that in chess it is far more easy to see whether rules are violated than in football/soccer as chess itself is formalised). The positivists would acknowledge observables, i.e., statements that can be clearly checked and verified or falsified on the basis of observations; those verified would be the objective ones. The law system and other decision making institutions would have rules that are meant to secure impartiality; although you can ultimately not verify impartiality, often you can identify partiality and try to explicitly avoid it. There are also ideas that state that consensus or "consensus among experts" are a key ingredient of objectivity, but these accounts will usually have to deal with the uncomfortable fact that consensus will not normally comprise 100% of the people (or even the experts) and the hard problems are (a) who counts as qualified enough to take part and (b) how many deviants would you still allow in the group defined by (a)? Furthermore in thought experiments you can easily imagine a 100% consensus on something that "in reality" is wrong. That said, neither "logical necessity" nor verifiable observation nor impartiality nor rules can be upheld without overwhelming consensus regarding their basis (unless of course you'd accept an unquestionable absolute authority). 

A fun fact is that Daston and Gallison in their Objectivity book of 2007 trace the history of the concept and the change of its meanings in science, and they argue that, if I remember it correctly, around the 18th century the terms of objectivity and subjectivity switched meanings, i.e., before they were used closer to the opposite of what we'd think of them now. (This has to be understood within a framework of continuous gradual change of the use of the concept also at any other time.)

And Humberto Maturana once said, referring to the role of objectivity claims in social discourse: "A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience."

rdtprog wrote: Unfortunateley those phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre) after seeing through what could get rid of that subject-object duality have come to a desperate conclusion about what they have discovered, which is that existence is not so much fun when you realize that you are "nothing" in this world...

I don't think any of the philosophers you refer to would draw the conclusion you try to put in their shoes...

One has this conclusion : You discover your existential anguish, the other that life is to be worry. it's not very far for what I said...

I agree it's a problem, and instead of "truth" I find much better IEP's term "subjective reality", as they divide reality into objective and subjective, and the point of view that judgements (opinions) are objective (corresponding to the objective reality) or subjective to varying degrees. ( https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ , the introductory section)

^ Neither the word "opinion" nor the word "judgement" are used in this IEP article, let alone the combination "objective judgement/opinion" because it would be contrary to what they're explaining. Objective opinions or judgements do not exist - it is in essence impossible.

Edit: I think I spelled "judgement" when searching for it, so it returned no results since in the article it is spelled "judgment", and it is quite extensively used. This doesn't change my point, though.

Not "opinion" as I used this word to explain "judgement" but: "Consequent judgments are objective or subjective to varying degrees, and we divide reality into objective reality and subjective reality. " (the next last sentence in the introductory section)

Hi,

I suppose that "truth" has to be independent of anything, that is relating to a person, and specially a mind. I keep thinking about how things are said and done that have a way to interfere with the idea of "truth" and what might be considered its "reality". The psychic world, and the digital-neuro world, try to "picture" this as something that is reachable within our minds, but at what point are we being subjective about it?

My thoughts are that while there is a side of the Internet that is awesome, the other side is that it has a massive tendency to distort any truth out there, up to and including cynical comments ... that have a tendency to lessen the importance of a thread (this board a good example), thus smearing the idea of objective/subjective to a point that it becomes impossible to get a good idea as to what is going on.

suitkees wrote: ... As Nietsche said: "Truth is an illusion of which we have forgotten that it is one." (This makes Nietsche so fun to read: he is "philosophizing with a hammer"). ...

Nietsche saying this during his time makes sense ... saying it today he would get trashed senselessly all over the Internet. Truth, in its most important translation is NEVER an illusion, although for our confused, and likely un-tuned minds, it seems like an illusion, something to search for, thus his comment makes sense to a point during his time.

The one story that is really valuable about this is the one about Jesus of Nazareth, since what he speaks of is a "truth" that everyone around him does not really believe in, and 300 years later, all churches decided to not follow the readings ... only the parts that suited them to get the controls they wanted over the public! This is probably/likely one of the first examples of manipulation of history, to some for of media/social control ... although I am a believer that the stories from Greek Mythology are the worst in this, and certainly the most ridiculous, with analogies that you would not even consider in stories to your own child! The idea of the "chorus" was invented as a sort of social mind that supposedly thought this way or that ... and many of the stories suffer and individuals get trashed senseless. The worst, for me, is Medea, who is accused of being a murderess, when she gave Glauce a robe (with poison per the Messenger) and then Glauce died in a fire ... dude ... how were things lit in those days? Lanterns on top of pillars with oil burning. Heat was kept in by tapestries on the walls and floors. All Glauce had to do was put on the robe and do a turn around and knock one of the pillars off and voila ... instant furnace. Later, her supposedly killing her own children is also bizarre, since an accident in one of those chariots would most likely hurt anyone in it, and specially children ... just go faster to get the rush, hit the rock or a hole ... bingo ... now why is the truth changed to poison? And then murder if it was an accident?

So you can see, how objective/subjective has been systematically DESTROYED to even the point that a definition, is literally impossible to discuss ... it's history, in my book, has been one of lies ... and social controls ... having nothing to do with "objective/subjective" ... and more to do with social and political aims.

I just don't know that we can arrive at a satisfactory discussion on this ... when history has so confused us to the point of simply wearing a beanie with a Question Mark instead of a small fan!

^^ Since opinions and judgements are always opinions and judgements of someone (a subject), they are thus by definition subjective. You can only confer some kind of objectivity to them within a specific framework (e.g. law, temperature measurement, the rules of a game...).

But it is a nice example of how these notions induce confusion: as soon as we change the frame of reference (or when two people talk both from a different frame of reference) it can only lead to misunderstandings.

Hi,

I think one of my concerns with the media in general, when objectivity, all of a sudden, is almost impossible, since it ends up coming from a "subject" ... now we have the another one of those chicken and the egg routines ... and our discussion hits a wall.

I'm not even sure that a framework, or rules, are even applicable at that point. Many a philosopher over the last millennia have tried hard to define that only to end up getting us all even more confused, with terms and ideas that we can not even ... conceive, or think about. This is what makes the stories of Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha and others so difficult ... we can not see much in them that would seem to be truth ... mostly because the words do not translate properly. (Serious issue here, btw !!!! Translations are the worst drag of all!). And a bad translation does not a philosophy make! PERIOD on that one I think!

My thoughts, and I've posted this before, is how this is used HERE on the board and seeing folks that post their top 5, not spend a whole lot of time posting about other threads about different and new music ... a good example of this is two special threads ... Damo's and Andrea's. You would think some of these folks would listen to something else and have something to say ... but when you, or I don't have anything to say, isn't it mostly because we subjectively don't care?

Yes, there's still some logical inconsistence in IEP's definitions and points of view, but on the other hand, the subjective reality is not just some human imagination without connection to the objective reality - when speaking in general.

There's a couple of different ways to look at it. There's at least:

For 1), you can talk for ages about what different philosophers think, but in philosophy you can always keep talking in circles for ages, so while that can be a fun thought exercise, everyone would be able to come to completely different conclusions.

I am more interested in 2), the practical applications of the term and how we define it, and for that, it's very simple to identify a statement as either objective or subjective. A child can do it. Of course, there's always different usages/definitions of words, e.g., the Wikipedia article talks about journalistic objectivity. But at that point, you're simply talking about something else. If we're talking about them as two opposed terms, any and all complications come purely from the philosphical realm.

For 3), specifically on this forum, a lot of people mistakenly believe that a review/rating of an album can be objective (verrrrry technically speaking, you can use objective criteria to rate albums, e.g., you can rate an album a certain about of stars based on the amount of songs that have the letter A in the title). Well, maybe not "a lot" of people believe that, but it comes up here quite often.

Those things don't really have anything to do with objectivity/subjectivity. Objective statements can be wrong. I can say "I have blue eyes", and "I have brown eyes", and yet only one is true, while both are objective statements. And even if 100% of all living human beings would agree that pineapple is gross, that wouldn't make "pineapple is gross" an objective statement. So consensus has nothing to do with it. But like Saperlipopette pointed out in the other thread, unanimity isn't necessary for consensus anyway.

^There's some vagueness whether or not true objectivity can exist (again, a philosophical topic more than anything else), but when it comes to assigning either the label objective or subjective to any thought or statement a human can come up with, there's not much wiggle room. Some people just use the terms in the wrong way. A lot of debate just comes down to that. 

I would love to hear some examples. So far I haven't really found anything that chances my mind, but I'm interested in what you are talking about exactly.

I totally agree that full objectivity is not possible, on the other hand, how could the mankind or even animals survive without certain degree of objective perception and understanding of the objective and subjective reality. 

Good point, an opinion is necessarily subjective, according to the definitions presented here, but can also possess a certain degree of objectivity, if understood as correspondence to the objective or subjective reality.

Yes.

but can also possess a certain degree of objectivity

You disagree here because you use another definition of "opinion" than I do. I meant any statement, also like "Human hand has usually five fingers".

You don't use any accepted use of the word 'opinion' then. All opinions are statements, not all statements are opinions. In your world, what is the difference between an opinion and a statement then? Are they synonymous? If that's the case, you're directly contradicting your previous comment! Is there some difference here between the Danish and English languages that's causing you to confuse things?

These examples here, I might call "normative opinions", which are different from "descriptive opinions" expressing some points of view with pretensions of objective knowledge, like the one with the human hand.

But it's a bit difficult for me with this "opinions" stuff, which word is best to use, due to my limited English knowledge.

I think you're confused with normative and descriptive statements. Terms that aren't that commonly used anyway, and have some limitations if I'm not wrong (I think they usually have to do with right/wrong/morality, which doesn't really apply to everything). If I had said "strawberries should be tasty", that'd be a normative statement. In English, opinions are usually expressed in the shape of statements. But not all statements are opinions. If I point out that humans tend to have 5 fingers, that's not an opinion.

Anyway, it's not just question of different languages but also of possible different epistemological positions. 

More than enough controversy is there to be found googling for objectivity in law, science, journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/" rel="nofollow - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252718302401" rel="nofollow - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252718302401

...even in statistics, where I belong:

https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/180/4/967/7068392" rel="nofollow - https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/180/4/967/7068392

Hi,

That's close to the same thing. In reading something like Pasolini's "Heretical Empiricism", the majority of his discussion is how the different areas in Italy shaped their "own" language, and even the socio/political structure of theirs since, the "language" was often controlled by those in power.

This, just about makes "epistemological" positions not only impossible, but also unreliable since it could be easily related to a sound, or mannerism of the culture, and not exactly something defined within the "language". It is a really difficult book to read that goes intensely into the depth of linguistics and its results ... and how some folks, writers and then later film makers, used it.

It's only a "question of such and such" when we ASSUME that the area, or that country's collective government is the "rule" that defines the language and makes sure it is taught.

We have to remember that "language" started eons ago from "sounds" and people eventually created words for those sounds. Thus, saying that it is about "different languages" is scary for me ... what makes the truth from the Mayans, or Aztecs, not true compared to the Buddhists or some of the Aramaic history?

It leaves us, unfortunately, only with an "idea" of what subjective/objective is ... which really does not say much for a lot of languages. And history has been messed up so bad in translations that finding something that gives us a hint and some help is nearly impossible to locate ... not to mention that the translations are even worse!

Ok, thank you. I was looking at some stuff earlier and it kind of supports my point, which I guess is that in various fields, the term objectivity takes on a more specific meaning that doesn't pretend to be applicable to the word as a whole, but simply to a concept within the field. It reminds a bit me of how I (and others, don't remember who started using it) used the term validity a while back - not quite correctly and you corrected me on that IIRC. But as far as day-to-day usage and talking about things like music, objectivity and subjectivity is rather straightforward. What those concerned with, say, law, think of it is its own little corner, as it were.

David_D wrote: Anyway, it's not just question of different languages but also of possible different epistemological positions.

Hi,

See above my discussion and mention of "Heretical Empiricism". David D is not likely to read anything that has more than 100 words or letters in it, I don't think.  ... JK, of course! Heck, even in a thread about poetry, I posted one long one ... he couldn't even say ... too many words! (instead of too many notes! -- hahaha as in Amadeus)

Okay, can you tell me where you find some epistemological definitions of "opinion" and "statement" - I haven't seen any.

To put some example in our context, and the discussion where it all started:

David_D wrote: Okay, can you tell me where you find some epistemological definitions of "opinion" and "statement" - I haven't seen any.

A lot of opinions are based on (things people percieve as) facts, but that doesn't make the opinion any less subjective.

Also, these two sentences:

Some seem to confuse objectivity with necessary truth. (...) While the opposite statetement "ITCOTCK might have influenced Sgt Peppers" is obviously neither objective nor true. It's at most an opinion, and an objectively wrong one.

are contradictive.

Yes, I've studied quite a lot of philosophy and especially epistemology, but it has also been many years ago even I've read some books once in a while since.

Anyway, I don't expect the discussions here to be on academical level, as it would be nice if not so few could join them. 

But it would be also nice if people could define the key terms/words they use, and especially "subjective" and "objective".

I can agree with this to a certain degree, as I don't find it to be that problematic. 

To me, the most problematic things are class society and market economy. 

And the day we might be confronted with an ecological disaster, we won't question much the notion of objectivity. 

The philosophical position/school I've been particularly fond of call themselves "critical realism", but I've been also attracted to social constructionism and Kant.

Hi,

I think that I would be more concerned with the "overlords" than anything else. In my way of seeing things, they make themselves look better and superior to the point of actually defining how something is done, and the laws of the land. Those, are not always in tune, with a person or their individual notions, thus, any ability to learn something and "get better" or "closer" to an "objective" reality goes further and further away.

The issue, for me, is us being able to "identify" the folks that are taking us away from the light ... by definition, they are considered "devils", but they are not considered that when they are the rule and the power in the country.

But there are ways to see the "objectivity" within someone and how they work with it, were we psychically tuned to see how honest and direct, and true to ourselves we would be at that moment ... which is also another issue. The words themselves would have some weight that was difficult to ignore ... and this one of the tough issues here ... when words have no weight ... and then weirdly enough we are trying to define and learn about something that goes way beyond words.  

I STILL can not convince these folks that a poor actor can make the worst words sound magnificent! And true! And we love it for its "entertainment"! 

Hi,

I do not "believe" this is "outside" the human mind. If that were the case all the occult and esoteric literature of thousands of years would have lost their touch and sense a long time ago.

All of these studies are "inward" towards levels of our psyche that we can not exactly understand or experience all the time ... many have tried. For example, Castaneda used a lot of "symbology" and many types of ideas kinda taken from various sources hundred of years in the making. But none of it was "external", though in the first few books there was a high amount of drugs, which were taken out later ... "were they necessary? No, but we had to shut you up so you could learn something else!".

Similarly, dreams also have various levels, the furthest of which we rarely tap into. Most of the dreams we remember are the stuff that is basically ruminating the every day life and folks, things we know, and distorting them, which would be a clue that our perception can not see it right. Further in it gets cloudier and muddier and you can not identify many of the things, likely they might be from a different time and place that we have never seen or encountered. Here, fine tuning even further helps some, and faces become visible or body shapes become visible, but your descriptions of them are ... incomplete at best.

The ideas/thoughts possible is that an "objective reality" is impossible, since no one will see the same things and agree properly on what they see and how. It's too much of wide ocean of difference and tears. 

Thus, for your example, for me, the attempt of a definition on these things is akin to the literature of the ancients trying to find a way to structure things so they could control people better, and then write books that supposedly help their religion get a stronger hold on things.

I wonder if this point of view is less problematic and dangerous than the one that argues all theories are relative - if to understand it as a rejection of any objectivity.

Stressed Cheese wrote: All opinions are statements, not all statements are opinions.

Gerinski wrote: The statement "Sgt Peppers might have influenced ITCOTCK" is an objective statement, .... ............. In my usage of the language (and remember I'm not a native English speaker), an opinion is usually subjective but not necessarily so, ..........

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English from 1974 defines "opinion" and "statement" this way:

opinion - belief or judgement not founded on complete knowledge

statement - 1. expression in words. 2. stating of facts, views, a problem, etc.

Maturana has written on "objectivity in parentheses", i.e., a somewhat weaker concept of objectivity that wouldn't suffer from the defects of the concept he criticises.

Note also that a view can be "problematic and dangerous" even if it is correct. Maybe the world and the ways of human beings are just dangerous and problematic, and the hope that any concept of objectivity could cure this is mistaken? I am with the constructivists on objectivity and many things, but I do recognise that their take comes with problems and issues (as any other).

We can at least agree it would be a good thing if making the human world better. I certainly don't think any concept of objectivity can do it alone, but otherwise, all the rest is open for discussion, as far as I see it - even I have some pressumptions. 

Actually, I don't find the notion of objectivity to be particularly good, as it surely has some traditions, while I think all knowledge 

is based on some specific values and product of some specific choices, so it's not impartial. I think what in German is called 

"Sachlichkeit", which requires some specific methods, is probably a better one.

 

Do you see some good potentials in social constructionism/constructivism if seen from the left wing perspective?

I'm not sure what you mean by "left wing perspective". The left wing hosts all kinds of democrats, direct and representative, anarchists, and authoritarians. There are best friends and arch enemies of constructivism. There are all kinds of perspectives on the left wing. 

(The question makes sense for me anyway as I came from the left wing to the constructivists, but these days I'd probably rather see the left wing from a constructivist perspective than the other way round.)

But what do you make of the dilemma that there is simply no way for human beings to go beyond their point of view, at least not if that includes a societal perspective? The point is not that objectivity does not exist, but rather that humans can't achieve it.

Unless you say that "objectivity" only refers to the nature of a statement, namely statements that refer to a reality that is supposed to be independent of any point of view, even if there isn't any chance of verifying such statements independently of any point of view.

What if I say, from the perspective of "socialism"?

Marx wrote "social existence determines consciousness", which can easily be seen as anti-constructivist, and I think that there is a good number of scientifically minded "objectivist" socialists who wouldn't appreciate constructivism at all. But then there are also social constructionists who focus far more on how human construction is shaped by society rather than on any "freedom of construction", and they push a very emancipatory, progressive, ultimately left wing agenda.

Hi,

School? 

That ain't the Internet. ..... we own the schools here, and no one pays attention to anything in school anymore, even in college, at least the first 4 years! But who the heck would enjoy getting it getting piled higher and deeper?

famousturkey wrote: You're FIRED

  

I'd say, as a very political thinker he was much more dialectic than that, meaning, surely the other way around as well - 

which is actually very interesting in the subjective vs objective context. 

Marxism has around the whole world also been an amazingly strong power in constructing the social existence, whatever to think

about it - which is even more interesting in the subjective vs objective context.

Actually, marxism makes me think that the philosophical concept of subjective, if defined as "relating to an object as it exists in the mind, 

as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself) ", is quite problematic because does all the human acting and much of its 

result have to be considered as a part of the "subjective" or "objective" reality.

I'm glad of hearing this, and it has also been my impression.

 

I acknowledge that solipsism is ultimately correct, but it is also ultimately unhelpful. How can one make sense of the world if one believes that the world doesn't exist? Therefore, one can assert that an objective reality does exist and that it can be examined by the senses, by scientific instruments, and by mathematics. In particular, mathematics can reveal the intrinsic orderliness of reality beyond the limitations of empiricism and manifest the objective nature of reality.

 

Hi,

An "objective"  reality can not possibly exist, since it means that many people have to agree to it, and have a say on it, as to how they "arrived" at that concussion!

It's even more difficult, when this "reality" is a part of the furthest internal/psychic and occult studies for many years, and delivered in many forms ... and some so different as to make us go ... wow ... without this internal "objective reality", just about everything will be some science or other that indeed can be learned by instruments, and mathematics, but, not likely, "senses" since those are an internal form of seeing and learning and thus understanding.

It is strange/weird to me, that we are discussing this "objective something" as a reality, when its existence is almost all "internal" and that is something that is a by-product of one's own internal studies and investigations.

Okay, maybe it's reasonnable enough, just complicated, as it's a matter of different perspectives including the one involving time.

To say that you don't have objective access to the world is not the same as saying/believing that the world doesn't exist. I for sure believe that the world exists. The only thing I say is that it is ultimately inaccessible how our perceptions are related to how it "really" is. I'm also fine saying that for many tasks we just experience that it works well to treat the world as if it were just like we perceive it (or scientific theories etc.). And maybe it is. We can't know. But we don't need this knowledge to live.

Anyway, "inter-subjectivity" is surely a useful concept.

Lewian, can you maybe tell another English word for the German "sachlich" than "objective"?

Which I actually find to be very good, but even better to be reflective and as a researcher open about it.

Good question... not sure whether any English word matches this properly in the way I think you have in mind. The direct translation "factual" works in some situations but not in others. "Bleiben Sie sachlich!" " Try to stick to the facts!" (Probably in most circumstances in English one wouldn't use an adjective but say things in different ways.)

 

HI,

I'm not sure this idea is possible. It would require that many folks explain their "mental construct", and just like here, many are not sure how to get to the meat of the subject, and end up listing Marxism, for lack of a better idea, or worst thought. Marxism, was a problem, according to Pasolini in his book, specially in Italy, where 50 different ideas of Marxism, existed! To use it as a generality, is ... crazy, because "marxism" in its pure form, never really existed ... other than a way to control the public! .... and here we are discussing something that was about "control" not finding out about something of value! What a socialist concept, this is!!!

I prophesy disaster wrote: ... even if the objective reality is not like the mental construct, the mental construct still contains the essence of the objective reality. That is, one can still make true statements about objective reality based only on the mental construct of it. It's worth noting that we can still determine that illusions are indeed illusions.

Just like we can with the idea of mental constructs and objective realities! 

We can't get out of the illusory areas, and instead throw ideas around like spaghetti ... not that it can not come up with something, but the value and idea of it, is kinda left behind, because the wording of it all, is nothing but a mental construct that has nothing to do with the internal side of reality ... the only thing that can possibly create an "objective" reality, at least for yourself ... impossible for anyone else! Even with its "individuality" ... since many bits and pieces kinda come together on occasion ... to create some great moments in the arts ... as is the case with the "progressive music" history, for example!

One consequence of this dependence on the music you have been exposed to is that ratings are going to be more objective the more experience you have as a listener, at least statistically. That is quite obvious when we look at the extremes - if you've only heard one album, your rating of it is not going to be objective at all, because you have no point of reference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you've already heard all the music that was ever recorded, you are well equipped to rate it very objectively - but you might still decide not to.

Hi

What I find, mostly, is that the majority of folks are not even interested in some explanations and thoughts about the artist himself/herself ... because most of their ideas come from the fan side of things, not the artist side of things. 

It's pretty obvious in this thread ... how some folks continually ignore posts that are dealing with the possible ideal/concept of creativity, because for them the discussion of 2 terms that are not well defined, not to mention that most posters continually are posting even more subjective content ... not to mention that inappropriate mention and discussion of the use of Marxism and the complete lack of even the idea or possibility that some philosophers had a much better idea about this discussion than otherwise ... but no ... one guy replies to himself, because he does not seem to "get it" or make up his mind about creativity and its magic ... 

In my mind, and remember I am a writer ... there is no magic in it ... it's a matter about you being able to accomodate what you see it, be it an invisible feeling in your hands or feet, or maybe a movie in your head (my case!) ... and to me that is "subjective" in the sense that I am merely trying to copy as fast as I can before the image goes poof in the night. It has nothing to do with the subjective/objective discussion whatsoever ... but this thread is not interested in the truth ... behind what is what and where it comes from ... they would rather be lost in the ideas and in the mixing of the words bouillabaisse style. More garlic and tomatoes plz!

For those interested in epistemology, I can very much recommend Andrew Sayer's book 

Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd edition, 1992).

Opinions may vary. It's left up to the individual reviewer. But I would urge reviewers and critics to avoid reviewing genres they know they don't like.  I would never review a Bette Midler or Taylor Swift album. How can you be objective reviewing music that you know will not please you in any way.

I've seen reviews where the reviewer is purposely gunning for the artist out of a personal disdain... Not a good thing.

Optional would be good too.  The 15 star rating they had at Gnosis was interesting.  Is Gnosis still operational?

Hrychu wrote: I don't think anyone but you was interested in this thread at this point. xD

I just wanted to recommend Andrew Sayer's book Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd edition, 1992). 

Hi,

For me, this is difficult ... it doesn't matter what kind of music, and who the people are ... some can do this and that ... and are good the way they are. Taylor Swift climbed Mt. Everest, and when she comes down, it's probably going to hurt. But is she as good as she thinks? I'm not sure I can get excited about trying to find this out ... I've outlived the teenage crush and hormones. Bette Midler is very different ... Her original material way back when was fun to watch and hear. Her stuff with the mermaid and wheelchair was nice and very satirical ... extremely so. 

I'm not a country fan at all, but I would be a hypocrite to say that Tammy or Dolly did not have really good voices, and they had a very good feel for how they sang and felt ... that is a gift, and it doesn't matter what any of us say ... and then ... well ... 

You got to remember that music is music, and likes and dislikes, will only threaten your ability to define music and how it is worked by so many different people. There are hundreds of thousands of expressions, and it really isn't fair to decide that some are right, and better, than the others. Which only defines the level of ethnocentricity within ourselves. 

I think that whenever a reviewer realises that they're about to submit an unusually high/low rating (compared to the typical ratings for the given release), they should think twice about submitting that rating. Of course in these situations the BEST option by far is to abstain from submitting the rating, which unfortunately isn't an option at PA, but it is possible on other websites (). For example, if you do not like growling vocals you are free to submit a one star rating to Opeth - Blackwater Park, but it's kind of idiotic. All you're really saying is that you hate the style of music, but that's not a good reason for "punishing" the release like that. On the other side of the spectrum, you could submit a 5 star rating to Metallica - St. Anger because that release is one of your "guilty pleasures" - you know it's crap, but you really like it. Again, nobody is stopping you from doing so, but it's not the most useful thing either.

The most "grown-up" choice IMHO is to abstain from submitting a rating. This is the strongest-possible signal to others that you are aware of your own biases, and it shows respect to those who are in a better position to enjoy these releases.