Can there be objectively bad writing?

qeidmakoqldndjomwmspzmnwkfovnwkoqndiixmwoaolqopqplapqzmxmkjdnncjmvjsnbajqjkqorutwoxkneinzjcinvnaoqonrkzomqkzomcmwomzmfokemxoemzkiwmaooiqueueutuirowiwjdkkfjgjhshhhahanxnixiwjwnanxnnigmajhjrjeajqggeriNbwhtjdjaknwwkotuuamsmdnbdbqoznnenxnqonwbfnnswownnznejnrmtmfmxoqoeunfmyounanjsiwmamcnjcsugjammwnrkcaumfmaiienmwghtnamwjtmdjiqkntnthenzjwjjengndniggjaueisnzuuwjernsnwiwjrnxoinakwijdjsnthenskwkijnenhwuwntextwnanjeiqomanxjkqkwndjixconwuwiwmmqmsjigratskdkiaiwkamsmkdkeiwooqpallcifjmciemmgjwokwmamsjicnrnmqokamkcolwoifjsmkakkakrkieiakskmdm- this is subjectively good to me and therefore can never be objectively bad

The good is that which tends to existence, and the bad is that which tends to non-existence. The purpose of writing is to inform or entertain. Any writing that fails to reproduce itself to achieve these goals is objectively bad.

It should be noted that some writing may be bad to some, but if its purpose was to entertain other people, then it can still be good in that regard.

this logic seems sound to me. someone refute him

based snzuuwjemsposter

Attached: bad lit.jpg (1440x435, 108K)

I think that writing can be objectively bad but that’s really just subjective, objectively (subjectively).

Overwrought metaphors that are stretched just enough to be uncomfortable, but not enough to seem intentional.

>babby's first thunderword
watch this:
Berobupermadaiitetrmponaatrebohlenadfesespeisparjoervabourespthtraoanmebjartmprebavochnapuuruveorabt!

Not laughed this hard in a while. Any more?

No

Yes. Anything that is boring or stupid.

>boring or stupid.

Those are subjective feelings, though.

>a primary schooler is as credible as Bloom

fuck it; I won't work on my writing because quality is subjective anyway

>MY WRITING ISN'T SHIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>stealing old reddit comments for (You)s
why are anons such pathetic parasites?
reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gnpgs/he_had_a_dick_attack/c1oxme1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

>bloom is credible at all

name a better critic than Harold Bloom

me

Prove it.

josefina ludmer

>Can there be objectively bad writing?
Only a good writer can judge writing as good and bad or what might constitute good and bad. There are none here to ask, so you won't find a sufficient answer. Even if you find someone somewhere, they might not really know, so be sure to ask the right questions.

The concept "objectivity" only exists in the minds of human beings with emotions, a date of birth, a mother, a father, a mood they are currently in depending on the weather of where they are living..

This right here. Brainlets depend on credibility because they can't think.

All concepts only exist in minds. No mind, no concepts.
Your point is...?

Everything you just said is wrong.
We are equally correct.

There is no objectivity. There is only subjectivity, and the way our collective subjectivities (individual lives) approach any kind of 'objective' consensus reality is through whatever persists. Beauty is the engine through which life is grinded, and if it persists in the minds of god's children, it approaches a divine status as an immortal monument, an aggregation of the longing of millions of individual lives.
Correct or incorrect isn't really the point.

>There is no objectivity. There is only subjectivity
Are you not claiming that these statements are objectively true?

objectively all writing is bad because it is derivative and debased from the truth of self-present speech, the pure expression of the consciousness of sovereign individuals

>Correct or incorrect isn't really the point.
You are wrong. However you want to spin it, me and you both have equally justified beliefs.

I claim these statements as subjectively true to me and you, we english speaking 2019 earth dwellers.

Is self-present speech derived from anything?

this is your brain when you live inside of a paradox

You cannot step in the same river twice

Wrong.

Objectively wrong
Subjectively right

the sound of a gong (statement) is not the same as the sound of a gong (physical reality)

Maybe for you :^) but not for me.

nietzsche has a nice quote,
"there is your way, and their is my way, but as for the only way, it does not exist" paraphrasing

If there is only subjectivity, then that is the same as saying there are only subjects, and that the only things that exist are our minds. It makes more sense that there are objective truths that may be distorted by our subjective perceptions.

their are tiers of subjective reality. some subjective realities are very fast and short lived, some are longer and deeper, like telluric currents that abide beneath the crust whilst empires rise and fall on the surface. they are both subjective realities, but they co-exist.

objectively wrong

Attached: the way.jpg (256x320, 24K)

Indirect realism always leads to radical skepticism which always leads to subjectivism. You have to cut out the middle man like Berkeley did

no idea what you’re saying. Your words are a waste of effort anyway as your perspective cannot be objectively true under your belief system

jesus is one of many enlightened individuals, and all human beings have to potential to become just as much a conduit for the divine truth. we worship and idolize those who have realized the truth, but they are not existing in a separate sphere from humanity. they are humanity. Jesus was fully human, just like you. Probably masturbated too.

I don't really think you'd need to consult some book about 'objective truths' to desire more than anything in existence to pull your hand away from a hot plate. Things are happening, we blabber on simultaneously.

If you’re godless, maybe

XxXxX YoU teLl Mi XxXxX
>Yes

Attached: 46a.png (645x729, 97K)

(my eyes seeing) ===> (thing I see) tfw my eyes won't ever see the thing supposedly there, only what I see

solipsism and subjectivism go hand in hand. You’re putting yourself in God’s position

'the thing supposedely there' is only their in relation to your eyes. it has no existence beyond that relationship. they are two features of the same process.

Then why is the object perceived in the first place

Well, everyone is in God's position, we're just pretending we aren't. That doesn't mean we don't all exist and don't have feelings and what not. Everybody contributes to the tapestry.

...?
"It loved to happen" ~marcus aurelius

I'm the user you replied to. It seems you've already cut out the middle man. Read Berkeley if you haven't, you'd like him and he was far from godless.

I thought Berkeley claimed that objects do exist through God’s perceiving them

Berkeley thought there were minds which perceived ideas and that's it. No representations or any other form of indirect realism, only the "two featues of the same process" which Berkeley would call perceiving. God would just be the ultimate perceiver seeing things even when you don't look at them; making things like trees falling and making a noise even when no person or animal is around to perceive it.

What is God perceiving? Surely He is perceiving some thing

Like I said in my first sentence as a mind He'd perceive ideas.

Is it not objectively true that you are making that claim?

"subjective truth" is just belief

Impossible, there is no objective criteria.

This is objectively good

Prove it.

The existence of limited people does not make objective criteria impossible. Are you retarted?

isnt "writing quality is subjective" an objective statement

Attached: 1342535828880.png (500x500, 194K)

Prove objectivity exists

2+2=4

lol retard

kek. Subjectivists BTFO

Yes.

I could go and explain what are the elements of good writing, and the diference between an amateur and shakespeare.

Most of Yea Forums fells into the same mental trap as /ic/ anime retards is my style faggotry.

bad writing, beyond grammar mistakes and typos, usually feature amateur writing, in the sense it lacks any technique or craft.
Poorly written subjects, no deep or original thoughs, cliche tropes, cliche descriptions, no use of all senses, static conflict, no philosophical background, is pretty clear their work is incestous with the most plebian forms of entertainment, usually anime or comics or capeshit or film.

Top tier writing and genius ones, basically can be described as acumulated life experience, knowlege of the writing craft, extensive use of compound sentences, use of niche vocabulary or several languages, extensive knowledge of tropes, use of anti trama plots, tridimentional characters, descriptions that uses all five senses, a didactic use of the work beyond mere fiction and entertainment, deep ideas based on philosophical tradition about a variety of topics.

Basically bad writing is a mark of being young and amateur, while good writing is a mark of being more mature and experienced at life.

Attached: 1555533395828.png (1373x833, 59K)

yes

Attached: Sword_Art_Online_Volume_01.png (1120x1600, 2.45M)

No. Through the very act of making one think "this was bad writing", the writing has already done its job.