Quote:
Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 12 2005, 11:51 AM
Finally, you've hit the point. To classify things objectively, you have to have a measurable metric for comparison. You just kept saying that "Casablanca is better than Deuce Bigelow" without any such metric.
That said, all of those things you mentioned are measured in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore measured against a subjective ruler. If you're going to say that the acting is objectively better, you need to have a way of measuring that, rather than just saying "it's obvious!"
|
I would contend something that is subjective can be objectively rated as well. Figure skating, for instance, is rated subjectively (or at least the artistic score). For that reason, many people think it should be removed from the Olympics. But is it not perfectly reasonable to state that objectively Kurt Browning is a better figure skater than I am? Or that Jimi Hendrix is a better guitarist than I am? Heck, subjectively someone might prefer my songs to his, but objectively he had more talent in one finger than I'll ever hope to have. I use these extreme examples to illustrate my point. Comparing Jimi Hendrix to Eric Clapton becomes more challenging and subjectivity comes into play, much like my comparison of Citizen Kane to Casablanca. But when comparing Hendrix to me it becomes obvious who is better, much like Deuce Bigelow vs. Casablanca.