Thoughts on Wind and Truth. SPOILERS

[Schizoposting]

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

Just because you prefer one to the other doesn't mean that your way of viewing things is correct.

Which way should it be viewed then? 

On 6/13/2026 at 10:40 PM, Frustration said:

I don't think it's a good faith argument to say that anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions.

Doubly so to assume you know why they actually feel a certain way better than they do.

I never said that "anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions"; nor do I find the question of why this or that person liked or disliked something to be particularly interesting—I am considering individuals in the aggregate. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

This feels like a huge assumption. A “feeling” that the book doesn’t sit well with you does not send every person incapable of literary analysis to randomly latch onto random details. Many people like specific sections and dislike others. Any reader can do this much without writing a complex analysis. Why is literally analysis required to determine someone’s opinion of a piece of media? Can I not say that the Shattered Plains arch felt like a copy of Azimir, and then conclude that it feels like padding and makes me dislike that part of the book?

The problem is that the immediate, unmediated, experience of consciousness is an illusion: what we think, and how we feel, is determined by unconscious forces beyond our direct control. That's why an individual's account why they feel, think, or act, in a certain way, is not to be trusted. That's not to say that understanding people's reactions to a certain piece of media is impossible, but it takes a deeper investigation than simply taking their word at face value.  

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Why is literary critique the “end all be all”, especially when the prose is included in a critique, but you say the content is more important. The popularity is the collective reaction of all readers’ opinions, regardless of how they word their opinions. Most complaints I have seen have said “Jasnah’s debate with Odium is simplistic and makes Jasnah seem stupid for not considering his responses” or “the Shattered Plains arc is a copy of Azimir that doesn’t stand out from its other and also poorly sets up Sigzil’s failure and makes his ending come out of nowhere and feel forced.”

The objective quality of a given work of art is determined by how well it reflects the human condition. The only way to determine this, is through literary analysis.

Regarding the debate, the reason why Jasnah "seems stupid", is because she's not quite the genius that she thinks she is—people were offended by that scene, because they bought into her delusions of invincibility. 

On 6/13/2026 at 11:39 PM, Grubfriend said:

Content judgement is not the problem. The problem is that certain parts ring hollow for certain individuals or groups, which is completely okay. Nothing Brandon has written is objectively perfect and is the absolute perfection of writing that all writers aim for, so we can safely say that he will mess up something, and with a book as large as WaT those sorts of mistakes pile up. The book is seen as flawed not because the masses tunnel vision on superficial details, but because they raise genuine issues with the writing.

Being popular does not give a certain perspective any epistemological privilege over others—far from it. Besides, WaT is hardly despised by the vast majority of readers: just look at the poll results. 

8 hours ago, Returned said:

I'm sure that some people really did dislike WaT for reasons like you suggest. But it's an error to say that that's the only way people could dislike it. Comparing WaT to earlier SA entries, I found the writing to be less polished and more formulaic, the plotting and pacing less natural, the characterization far weaker, the dialogue worse (though not particularly due to being too modern), the development and presentation of themes and ideas far more crude and less intriguing, and the worldbuilding details less imaginative and less smoothly integrated into the narrative and prose. None of that makes the things the book does well any less good. But I think that the book could have accomplished everything you claim about it while also being better written than it was-- my issues are not about what the book was supposedly trying to do but rather about the execution of the attempt.

Obviously, no book is perfect, and one can certainly have valid criticisms of how WaT was executed. The problem is that the backlash in the fandom is completely disproportional to how well the book was actually received by the average reader, not to mention its actual quality. So why is this? Why does a substantial minority of the fandom passionately despise this book? Simply saying that people disliked it because they thought it was bad is tautological.

20 hours ago, Returned said:

People may disagree with any or all of those opinions I hold, and even for those who do agree these items may not have detracted from their experience as much as they did mine. But others may feel similarly, or have other complaints that negatively impacted their enjoyment of the book. I'm glad that you liked it. It's really disrespectful and arrogant to tell others that they're too foolish and incompetent to appreciate the book or even know their own thoughts about it, based primarily on their not liking it so much. There is absolutely room for real critique, and disagreeing with your enthusiasm is not an impressive heuristic for dismissing that.

I don't think that it's at all "arrogant" to treat people's perspectives as the object of critique—if anything, it's the highest form of respect to take these views seriously, instead of dismissing them by saying that all perspectives are equally valid. 

Nor do I think that people are "stupid" for disliking WaT—people like or dislike things for myriads of reasons, which may or may have anything to do with its actual quality. If you read for pleasure and think that Shakespeare is boring, while enjoying Red Rising, that's perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that the former is far superior to the latter. (Obviously, the Stormlight Archive is nowhere near as good as Shakespeare, but the point still stands.)  

[Frustration]

19 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Which way should it be viewed then? 

As an opinion, thus with each individual allowed to value whichever part they so desire

20 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

I never said that "anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions"; nor do I find the question of why this or that person liked or disliked something to be particularly interesting—I am considering individuals in the aggregate. 

That doesn't change the fact that you still claim that those with an opinion different from yours don't understand the reasons for their own feelings. Whether a particular individual or in the aggregate, that's what you claimed.

23 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

The objective quality of a given work of art is determined by how well it reflects the human condition. The only way to determine this, is through literary analysis.

You didn't answer the question.

Why is the reflection of the human condition an objective quality of a given work? Why is literary analysis the only way to determine this?

28 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

If you read for pleasure and think that Shakespeare is boring, while enjoying Red Rising, that's perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that the former is far superior to the latter.

Superior based on what exactly?

[Returned he/him]

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Why does a substantial minority of the fandom passionately despise this book? Simply saying that people disliked it because they thought it was bad is tautological.

Not at all. There are plenty of works that I think are not very good but still enjoy. There are works that I think are well done, meticulously crafted and just what the creator wished, but that I don't enjoy. The group that disliked the book has been pretty vocal about why, and the sum of their complaints (voiced or not) is what leads to the assessment of the book's quality.

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I don't think that it's at all "arrogant" to treat people's perspectives as the object of critique—if anything, it's the highest form of respect to take these views seriously, instead of dismissing them by saying that all perspectives are equally valid. 

I have a difficult time seeing it as a sign of respect to immediately reject someone's stated reason for why they disliked something, and then assert a totally different reason they never expressed as the reason that is unquestionably correct. Rejecting a view out of hand is the opposite of taking it seriously. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in any inquiry about people's opinions (in this thread at least, which obviously isn't the only one and isn't necessarily representative), instead saying that a variety of expressed opinions can only be wrong both as descriptions of the book and also as description of their own preferences.

And it's not like you're raising those points when people say they liked the book because the fight scenes were great or Kaladin is soo coooool or subverting structure necessarily produces great works or whatever. It's only the people who feel differently than you about the book that are told to justify their feelings and rationales to you, or else have them dismissed as false and irrelevant.

21 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Nor do I think that people are "stupid" for disliking WaT—people like or dislike things for myriads of reasons, which may or may have anything to do with its actual quality.

As I read your posts in this thread I come away with the impression that you think people who disliked WaT mainly felt that way because they are addicted to the narrative structure used in the first three SA books, are incapable of appreciating or enduring that structural change, are incapable of expressing (or even knowing) that that change is what they disliked, and so blindly grasp at an arbitrary (and invalid) detail and wrongly identify it as the explanation, then utterly commit to it anyways in some sort of fumbling, belligerent ignorance. It's a description of someone foolish and shallow.

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

Maybe that's not your actual sentiment and we're dealing with forum-induced lack of clarity or poor articulation. I don't want to assert the contents of your own mind to you, but I suspect most people will read what was written as an intentional, proudly-delivered insult rather than a gambit in an open, good-faith discussion.

Edited Tuesday at 05:21 PM by Returned

[+Child of Hodor]

Book too big. Make book smaller. It's hard to review because it's so big and has so many different storylines. 

I enjoyed the lore dumps of the new visions and Tanavast POVs. 

Kaladin's mission felt too videogamey go defeat the guardians of the temple to unlock the triforce type of thing. I felt like we didn't get enough of where people lived in Shinovar. 

The big loophole in the contract being capturing the capitals was a little disappointing. It was confusing how Taravangian can kind of fudge things in that regard, but Hoid is like "we can't change the laws that would be cheating". 

El didn't do much after a big buildup. 

BAM literally didn't do anything after a big build up. Rhlain and Renarin freeing her was a nice touch calling back to when she was trapped. 

I thought the ending worked well. 

Having Shallan playing Hide and Seek in the Visions felt a little redundant. We see the visions through Dalinar and then we see them through Shallan. 

I was definitely poisoned by Brandon saying the book would wrap up the front 5 arc and it didn't except for Dalinar. Looking forward to the Voidlight archives (Warlight whatever). Dismayed that it might be another 6.5 years before the new release. 

[Schizoposting]

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

As an opinion, thus with each individual allowed to value whichever part they so desire

The great irony of postmodernism is that saying truth is relative is in itself an objective truth—your assertion that art is subjective is just as exclusionary of other perspectives, as saying that it's not. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

That doesn't change the fact that you still claim that those with an opinion different from yours don't understand the reasons for their own feelings. Whether a particular individual or in the aggregate, that's what you claimed.

I don't think that people understand their feelings in general, beyond the superficial. It has nothing to do with their opinion on WaT. 

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

You didn't answer the question.

Why is the reflection of the human condition an objective quality of a given work? Why is literary analysis the only way to determine this?

Because it's the only criterion that can objectively determine the quality of art—conversely, if we judge a given work by how aesthetically pleasing it is, then it degenerates into subjectivism, since different people may find different things to be aesthetically pleasing. Quality can only be determined by literary analysis, because said analysis is defined as understanding how a given work relates to the human condition.  

21 hours ago, Frustration said:

Superior based on what exactly?

Based on the criterion described above. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

I have a difficult time seeing it as a sign of respect to immediately reject someone's stated reason for why they disliked something, and then assert a totally different reason they never expressed as the reason that is unquestionably correct. Rejecting a view out of hand is the opposite of taking it seriously. It doesn't seem like you're engaging in any inquiry about people's opinions (in this thread at least, which obviously isn't the only one and isn't necessarily representative), instead saying that a variety of expressed opinions can only be wrong both as descriptions of the book and also as description of their own preferences.

What critiques, exactly, have I dismissed out of hand? I have repeatedly stated that there are valid critiques of WaT; however, said critiques are nowhere near enough to explain why there is such vitriol towards this book compared to others, especially when the aforementioned critiques apply just as much, if not more so, to earlier entries in the series. 

13 hours ago, Returned said:

And it's not like you're raising those points when people say they liked the book because the fight scenes were great or Kaladin is soo coooool or subverting structure necessarily produces great works or whatever. It's only the people who feel differently than you about the book that are told to justify their feelings and rationales to you, or else have them dismissed as false and irrelevant.

I would say the exact same thing to those people. Nor do I think that subversion is good for its own sake: it's only good insofar as the ideal being subverted is false.

13 hours ago, Returned said:

As I read your posts in this thread I come away with the impression that you think people who disliked WaT mainly felt that way because they are addicted to the narrative structure used in the first three SA books, are incapable of appreciating or enduring that structural change, are incapable of expressing (or even knowing) that that change is what they disliked, and so blindly grasp at an arbitrary (and invalid) detail and wrongly identify it as the explanation, then utterly commit to it anyways in some sort of fumbling, belligerent ignorance. It's a description of someone foolish and shallow.

This is a very dishonest framing—I never said that people were "addicted", "stupid", "belligerent", or anything of that sort; perhaps you think that people are stupid for lacking self-knowledge, but I don't.

14 hours ago, Returned said:

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

Saying that refusing to accept people's self-perception to be unconditionally true, makes you contemptuous and denigrating, is a bizarre claim to make. By that reasoning, every great philosopher and thinker of the last 200 years "radiated contempt and denigration", by doing the former.

[Frustration]

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The great irony of postmodernism is that saying truth is relative is in itself an objective truth—your assertion that art is subjective is just as exclusionary of other perspectives, as saying that it's not. 

I despise postmodernism with all of my heart. Truth is an absolute. However, value is subjective, that's not philosophical. It's observable reality. People make different decisions based on the same circumstance because they value different things. This is why two people can read the same book and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Not because the book is relative to them, but because they have different values that the book either did or did not appeal to.

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Because it's the only criterion that can objectively determine the quality of art—conversely, if we judge a given work by how aesthetically pleasing it is, then it degenerates into subjectivism, since different people may find different things to be aesthetically pleasing. Quality can only be determined by literary analysis, because said analysis is defined as understanding how a given work relates to the human condition.  

I'm afraid that isn't any clearer. You haven't explained any benefit of judging a book exclusively on how it appeals to the human condition other than stating that it's objective. However all definitions I've found for the human condition are themselves not objective. And even if there is an objective definition out there that I have been unable to find that still doesn't explain why it is the only measure of quality for a book.

As stated above value is subjective, while you might hold relation to the human condition as the most valuable thing a book can do that is not universal.

19 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Saying that refusing to accept people's self-perception to be unconditionally true, makes you contemptuous and denigrating, is a bizarre claim to make. By that reasoning, every great philosopher and thinker of the last 200 years "radiated contempt and denigration", by doing the former.

You didn't respond at all to what @Returned was saying.

Edited Wednesday at 02:51 PM by Frustration

[Schizoposting]

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

I despise postmodernism with all of my heart. Truth is an absolute. However, value is subjective, that's not philosophical. It's observable reality. People make different decisions based on the same circumstance because they value different things. This is why two people can read the same book and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Not because the book is relative to them, but because they have different values that the book either did or did not appeal to.

For the vast majority if human history, it was common sense that Homer, Shakespeare, or whoever, was the pinnacle of art—it was only with the rise of postmodernism that it was accepted that bad fan fiction was just as good as the great works of yesteryear.    

It's certainly true that people may have various values, but not all values are equal; despite pretensions to the contrary, everyone implicitly accepts this—"tolerant" liberal multiculturalism is famously rather intolerant of "intolerant" values that don't align with its own. So, good art is art that represents values that are good and is opposed to those that are bad. 

But what determines whether or not a value is correct or not? Quite simply: a value is valid to the extent that it's a truthful reflection of the human condition—otherwise, it would be false, and misleading.

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

I'm afraid that isn't any clearer. You haven't explained any benefit of judging a book exclusively on how it appeals to the human condition other than stating that it's objective. However all definitions I've found for the human condition are themselves not objective. And even if there is an objective definition out there that I have been unable to find that still doesn't explain why it is the only measure of quality for a book.

The trick is, all art already reflects the (human) conditions under which it was made. The difference between good and bad art, is that the latter only superficially represents these conditions, whilst the former reflects the human condition as it really is. So, one way of determining the human condition would be through literary analysis. (To be clear, some aspects of the human condition are universal, whilst others are particular to a certain time period and certain social conditions.) 

On 6/16/2026 at 5:01 PM, Frustration said:

You didn't respond at all to what @Returned was saying.

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to.

[Frustration]

16 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

For the vast majority if human history, it was common sense that Homer, Shakespeare, or whoever, was the pinnacle of art—it was only with the rise of postmodernism that it was accepted that bad fan fiction was just as good as the great works of yesteryear. 

What does bad fan fiction have to do with what we are talking about?

And how on earth was it common sense? I would call neither even good, but let's accept the idea that they are. Tolkien quite famously took issue with a lot of Shakespeare's work and set out to do better. He certainly disliked postmodernism and had a quite rigid morality. If Shakespeare is some pinnacle of quality, why did undoubtedly the most influential author in the genre take issue with him?

20 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

It's certainly true that people may have various values, but not all values are equal; despite pretensions to the contrary, everyone implicitly accepts this—"tolerant" liberal multiculturalism is famously rather intolerant of "intolerant" values that don't align with its own. So, good art is art that represents values that are good and is opposed to those that are bad. 

I'm not sure what you're arguing against, so I'm going to try and explain it a different way.

Why do people buy the phones they do? The vast majority of us have the same needs that any particular phone will suffice, and we all have nearly if not completely the same options. So why do some people pick Samsung or Pixels, while others take iPhone?

It's not because one is good and the others are bad. It's not even because people don't know what they want. It's because people have different wants and desires. They value different things, and thus view one or the other as better or worse for them.

27 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

But what determines whether or not a value is correct or not? Quite simply: a value is valid to the extent that it's a truthful reflection of the human condition—otherwise, it would be false, and misleading.

Define the human condition.

27 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

The trick is, all art already reflects the (human) conditions under which it was made. The difference between good and bad art, is that the latter only superficially represents these conditions, whilst the former reflects the human condition as it really is. So, one way of determining the human condition would be through literary analysis. (To be clear, some aspects of the human condition are universal, whilst others are particular to a certain time period and certain social conditions.) 

That doesn't answer why judging solely based on reflection of the human condition is good.

29 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to.

That you dismiss both other people's opinion and the metrics they used to judge a book simply because you disagree with them, and then proceed to say that their methods of judgment are invalid because they don't hold up to your standards.

Quote

Comments like "most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things" and "Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way" really radiate contempt and denigration, especially when dismissing those people's opinions (both their evaluation of the book as well as why they evaluated it that way).

 

[Schizoposting]

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

And how on earth was it common sense? I would call neither even good, but let's accept the idea that they are. Tolkien quite famously took issue with a lot of Shakespeare's work and set out to do better. He certainly disliked postmodernism and had a quite rigid morality. If Shakespeare is some pinnacle of quality, why did undoubtedly the most influential author in the genre take issue with him?

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/08/10/the-importance-of-the-homeric-poems-in-ancient-greek-culture/

Spoiler

Nonetheless, for most of ancient Greek history, Homer was widely regarded not only as a real person, but as the greatest poet who ever lived. Towards the beginning of the philosophical dialogue Ion, written by the Athenian philosopher Plato (lived c. 427 – c. 347 BC), Socrates, a speaker in the dialogue, calls Homer “ὁ ἀρίστος καὶ θειοτάτος τῶν ποιητῶν,” which means “the best and most divine of poets.” In the dialogue that follows, Socrates and his interlocutor, the rhapsode Ion, discuss the correct interpretation of the Iliad and the Odyssey, ascribing a great deal of moral and philosophical significance to them.

...

Students in ancient Greece were often required to memorize lengthy passages from the Iliad and the Odyssey by rote and be able to recite them from memory, because it was widely believed that these poems taught a man how to live a good and noble life.

...

The Iliad and the Odyssey in particular were widely regarded as supreme literary works, superior to all others.

This is just one example. The fact that people believed in the objectivity of art in the past, is indisputable. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

Why do people buy the phones they do? The vast majority of us have the same needs that any particular phone will suffice, and we all have nearly if not completely the same options. So why do some people pick Samsung or Pixels, while others take iPhone?

Advertising. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

It's not because one is good and the others are bad. It's not even because people don't know what they want. It's because people have different wants and desires. They value different things, and thus view one or the other as better or worse for them.

Not all wants and desires are equally valid. 

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

Define the human condition.

The condition under which humans exist.

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

That doesn't answer why judging solely based on reflection of the human condition is good.

I already answered that question: it's the only way to objectively determine the quality of art.

23 hours ago, Frustration said:

That you dismiss both other people's opinion and the metrics they used to judge a book simply because you disagree with them, and then proceed to say that their methods of judgment are invalid because they don't hold up to your standards.

I don't dismiss people's opinions because they disagree with me—I am just as willing to dismiss the opinions of people who like WaT, if said opinions are superficial; I already said this in my reply to @Returned. 

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/08/10/the-importance-of-the-homeric-poems-in-ancient-greek-culture/

  Reveal hidden contents

Nonetheless, for most of ancient Greek history, Homer was widely regarded not only as a real person, but as the greatest poet who ever lived. Towards the beginning of the philosophical dialogue Ion, written by the Athenian philosopher Plato (lived c. 427 – c. 347 BC), Socrates, a speaker in the dialogue, calls Homer “ὁ ἀρίστος καὶ θειοτάτος τῶν ποιητῶν,” which means “the best and most divine of poets.” In the dialogue that follows, Socrates and his interlocutor, the rhapsode Ion, discuss the correct interpretation of the Iliad and the Odyssey, ascribing a great deal of moral and philosophical significance to them.

...

Students in ancient Greece were often required to memorize lengthy passages from the Iliad and the Odyssey by rote and be able to recite them from memory, because it was widely believed that these poems taught a man how to live a good and noble life.

...

The Iliad and the Odyssey in particular were widely regarded as supreme literary works, superior to all others.

This is just one example. The fact that people believed in the objectivity of art in the past, is indisputable. 

That might work on 99.99% of people, I have a sufficiently obsessive knowledge about history to know that no less than Plato was one of Homer's biggest critics.

2 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Advertising.

That's a tiny part of it.

One of my friends is obsessive about iPhone's cameras and how great they are. To me that means nothing, any camera available on the market is sufficient for me. Pixels have unlockable bootloaders allowing you to change the OS, which is a big draw for me. To the vast majority of the population those words mean nothing and the feature is irrelevant. What about that has to do with advertising?

2 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Not all wants and desires are equally valid.

And why is camera quality more or less valid than OS preferences?

2 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The condition under which humans exist.

That would mean that there are over 8 Billion human conditions, of which any particular person is familiar with less than 0.1% of them.

2 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I already answered that question: it's the only way to objectively determine the quality of art.

You say that it's about appealing to the human condition, but you don't even understand the totality of your own definition of the human condition. What that means is you are able to judge how well a work represents what you think of as the human condition.

That seems like it is very subjective unless you wish to say that it just has to reflect A human condition. That however again makes it subjective in that what might reflect your condition poorly may be an excellent reflection of mine.

And on top of that you would have to say that a person just recording a video their life would be a better artist than Shakespeare or Homer combined.

Edited 6 hours ago by Frustration

[Schizoposting]

14 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That might work on 99.99% of people, I have a sufficiently obsessive knowledge about history to know that no less than Plato was one of Homer's biggest critics.

If you actually understood Plato, then you'd know that he believed in the objective from of the beautiful. And Plato was never opposed to poetry—that's a blatant misreading. I say this with confidence, because I have read every single one of his dialogues, including the boring and nigh incomprehensible ones.

20 minutes ago, Frustration said:

One of my friends is obsessive about iPhone's cameras and how great they are. To me that means nothing, any camera available on the market is sufficient for me. Pixels have unlockable bootloaders allowing you to change the OS, which is a big draw for me. To the vast majority of the population those words mean nothing and the feature is irrelevant. What about that has to do with advertising?

And why is camera quality more or less valid than OS preferences?

What does camera preference have to do with art?

25 minutes ago, Frustration said:

That would mean that there are over 8 Billion human conditions, of which any particular person is familiar with less than 0.1% of them.

No, because there's a difference between the particular and the universal; it's a basic concept in philosophy.

28 minutes ago, Frustration said:

And on top of that you would have to say that a person just recording a video their life would be a better artist than Shakespeare or Homer combined.

That would be vulgar empiricism—subjects do not have immediate access to "noumena"—the very act of perception gives us a warped view of the object being perceived.  I already made this distinction in a previous comment.

[Frustration]

41 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

If you actually understood Plato, then you'd know that he believed in the objective from of the beautiful. And Plato was never opposed to poetry—that's a blatant misreading. I say this with confidence, because I have read every single one of his dialogues, including the boring and nigh incomprehensible ones.

See this is the kind of arrogant assumptions we've been talking about.

You just claim that others don't understand and completely dismiss what they say.

Also I never once said that Plato was opposed to poetry, just that he was critical of Homer.

46 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

What does camera preference have to do with art?

Phone preference.

And just as people have value features differently that cause them to judge phones, they value aspects of books differently which results in difference of judgment.

Likewise just as no one is "wrong" for choosing a particular phone. No one is "wrong" for how they judge a particular book.

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

No, because there's a difference between the particular and the universal; it's a basic concept in philosophy.

That would be vulgar empiricism—subjects do not have immediate access to "noumena"—the very act of perception gives us a warped view of the object being perceived.  I already made this distinction in a previous comment.

If you need so many qualifiers for this method to make sense, maybe it isn't objective or intuitive.