……客观吗？在这种媒介（网络论坛）上根本没办法三言两语回答清楚。我当年上过两门研究生研讨课，还就此写过好几篇论文 :) 不过作为入门读物，我强烈建议读读休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the standard of taste）：http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html 在那篇文章中，他试图为艺术、美食和文学的客观评判提供一些明确的标准。（请注意，确实存在……
…objective? There's no easy way of answering that on this kind of medium (an Internet forum). I took two graduate seminars and wrote several papers on it :) But as a primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the standard of taste': http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html In that essay, he attempts to provide some clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature. (Note that there ARE…
……某些东西（所谓的主观事物：艺术、美食、文学）确实比同领域的其他东西更好。正如我在另一条评论中建议的那样，作为入门，我强烈建议你去读读休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste），拿点具体的论据出来讨论，别在这儿装得好像自己提出了什么高深莫测的高论似的。换句话说，你说的这些根本不是什么新鲜玩意儿，而且极其简单化、幼稚，并且（我……
…certain things (so called subjective things: art, food, literature) are better than other things in the same arena. As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind of profound argument. In other words, what you're saying isn't new. It's also very simplistic, naïve, and (I…
我知道你问的是“好”是否意味着技艺精湛，但你举的托尔金的例子让我想起了休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste）[0]。这书读起来可不算轻松，但绝对物有所值。TL;DR——品味是有高下粗精之分的。我们有一些理由相信，更优雅高尚的品味要“优于”……
I know you asked about "good" implying skill, but your example of Tolkien made me think of Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste"[0] Not the lightest reading, but very worth the effort. TL;DR - taste is something that can be more refined or less refined. We have some reasons to believe that more refined tastes are 'better' than…
我本来还指望他会提到大卫·休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste）[0]呢，休谟提出了类似而且我认为更好的论点（虽然读起来可能没那么通俗易懂），我一开始还以为这篇文章是从休谟那儿得到的灵感呢。[0] https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html
I'm was expecting him to mention "Of the Standard of Taste" by David Hume [0] which makes a similar and I think better (though maybe not as easy to read) argument and which I thought this piece was inspired by at first. [0] https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html
……客观吗？在这种媒介（网络论坛）上根本没办法三言两语回答清楚。我当年上过两门研究生研讨课，还就此写过好几篇论文 :) 不过作为入门读物，我强烈建议读读休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the standard of taste）：http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html 在那篇文章中，他试图为艺术、美食和文学的客观评判提供一些明确的标准。（请注意，确实存在……
…objective? There's no easy way of answering that on this kind of medium (an Internet forum). I took two graduate seminars and wrote several papers on it :) But as a primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the standard of taste': http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html In that essay, he attempts to provide some clear-cut criteria for an objective judgment of art, food, and literature. (Note that there ARE…
……某些东西（所谓的主观事物：艺术、美食、文学）确实比同领域的其他东西更好。正如我在另一条评论中建议的那样，作为入门，我强烈建议你去读读休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste），拿点具体的论据出来讨论，别在这儿装得好像自己提出了什么高深莫测的高论似的。换句话说，你说的这些根本不是什么新鲜玩意儿，而且极其简单化、幼稚，并且（我……
…certain things (so called subjective things: art, food, literature) are better than other things in the same arena. As I suggested in my other comment, as I primer, I strongly suggest reading Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' and bringing forward some talking points instead of pretending like you're making some kind of profound argument. In other words, what you're saying isn't new. It's also very simplistic, naïve, and (I…
我知道你问的是“好”是否意味着技艺精湛，但你举的托尔金的例子让我想起了休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste）[0]。这书读起来可不算轻松，但绝对物有所值。TL;DR——品味是有高下粗精之分的。我们有一些理由相信，更优雅高尚的品味要“优于”……
I know you asked about "good" implying skill, but your example of Tolkien made me think of Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste"[0] Not the lightest reading, but very worth the effort. TL;DR - taste is something that can be more refined or less refined. We have some reasons to believe that more refined tastes are 'better' than…
我本来还指望他会提到大卫·休谟的《论趣味的标准》（Of the Standard of Taste）[0]呢，休谟提出了类似而且我认为更好的论点（虽然读起来可能没那么通俗易懂），我一开始还以为这篇文章是从休谟那儿得到的灵感呢。[0] https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html
I'm was expecting him to mention "Of the Standard of Taste" by David Hume [0] which makes a similar and I think better (though maybe not as easy to read) argument and which I thought this piece was inspired by at first. [0] https://home.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html