I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different.
Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective. Unless you hold as I do that popularity is similar enough to objectivity to qualify. The cultural or popular notion determine what is right regarding subjectively judged subjects. This notion, including the spelling and even usage of words, can change over time.
That proves the argument. "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct. It wasn't even always "thing". It used to be different, and that was correct too.
> "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct.
Sure, but it's not correct now, despite being cultural.
Again, it's cultural, but that doesn't make it subjective. The fact that it will be different in the future doesn't tell you that it's already different now. There is a fact of the matter here on which everyone already agrees; it's as objective as any other fact.
Yes, it does. Unless you subscribe to popular=objective, which I do. It is different now though. Looking at the past tells us that. It isn't like every other fact. There is a lot of disagreement in this thread. It isn't a fact like 2+2=4 is a fact.
"-our" endings are a fairly recent British concoction based on French envy. (French spells it "couleur".) French probably has a good reason to write it that way because it captures the phonetics. The extra "u" does nothing in English other than take up space and ink.
The "color" spelling is: (1) shorter: absence of the superfluous is better than its presence; (2) etymologically correct, since the Latin original is "color"; (3) closer to the spelling of the word's cognate in a bunch of languages: Spanish: color; Basque: kolore; Italian: colore; Polish: kolor.
For at least these three reasons, it can be regarded as correct.
English dialects that use "our" endings and whatnot should rid themselves of the baggage, except in the case of direct French loanwords like "velour", pronounced "..oor".
Firstly, I'm not aware of a documented "superfluus" usage in English. Maybe we have to go back more than seven or eight hundred years to find it?
Secondly, "-ous" (like "-ose") functions generally as an adjective-forming suffix and is derived from the Latin "-ōsus"; it does not correspond to, and is not an expansion of the the "us" ending in "superfluus". "superflous" can be regarded as a derivation of "superfluus" that has been regularized with the "-ous" ending to make it recognizable as an adjective. This has happened with other words, like "continuus" and "contiguus". In contrast to these, many "-ous" words in fact some from ancient "-ōsus" counterparts, like "numerous" from "numerōsus".
The case for reviving "-ōsus" in English isn't very good; since neither of its "s"s are silent, it calls for a change in the actual spoken words, rather than merely spelling. Plus, it is unfamiliar to English speakers.
The case for creating a class of "-us" adjectives to restore Latin spellings like "contiguus" or "superfluus" is also not very good. It may be shorter, but adds to the proliferation of suffixes. To retain the pronunciations, we need "uu" to be rendered as the diphthong /yuə/ or /uə/, the precedent for which is scarce (being apparently limited to just "continuum"?) I'm not aware of any dialect of English in which such a restoration attempt has taken place, unlike "color" and "neighbor".
Yes. The culture decided it was so, and therefore it was. The majority of the United States seems to think the Bill of Rights is good, and therefore it is. The majority of Europeans seems to think the European Union is good, and therefore it is. Other cultures may not agree, but that doesn't matter.
That doesn’t make it an objective good. Just because the culture at large is under delusions and hysteria does not mean their assessment of reality maps to an objective good
I agree with this. There's definitely way more available today, and in many more niche genres than there was available in the 70s and 80s. Arguably there is also a higher proportion of trash because of the ease of entry, but because the fanbases can be so segmented people can find stuff they really like that's more geared toward their specific tastes. Plus, there are greater search tools than before, like Spotify.
People still listen to Metallica's music, and their music still ends up in movies.
I don't really think all new music is bad, just most of it. The same could be said for back in the day though. Metallica is a bad example for you to use cause they are still widespread because they are really good. There are other bands you haven't heard of from the 70s and 80s.
Unless you're really, really into music, your taste in music essentially stops developing by the time you hit your 30s. If you're listening to Metallica today, it's because you were listening to Metallica when you were 15 (I was, and I still do).
This "all new music is dross" argument is repeated every generation as new music out-ages the outgoing generation.
I like Metallica just as much as the next guy, but they're not relevant anymore. They've been laughed out of the music industry ever since they got upset about their music being pirated - which is actually a great example of how the music industry has changed and left them in the dust. Do they still sell records? Sure. But that's not what I'm talking about. Would I listen to their opinions on modern music industry trends? Absolutely not.
Of course there are bands I haven't heard of from the 70s and 80s. That doesn't mean the ones I have heard of are relevant. It means they're memorable.
> Do they still sell records? Sure. But that's not what I'm talking about. Would I listen to their opinions on modern music industry trends? Absolutely not.
I bet they feel just terrible to only be making money off of people buying their music, but not paying attention to their opinions.
