What's "Good Quality"?; A Category

I know this is a topic that often applies to art, and many will be familiar with the question. There is a real difference in how people feel about "good" art. As a poet, I am quick to judge other poems that are either not as seriously worked on, or considered, and may even look down on certain kinds of poetry that I feel should not be classified as such. Some music purists will tell you what a "good" song should have, or a movie critic telling you what is "great" about a movie. Of course some people believe that a standard exists, others claim it is really a personal choice; this is how certain unusual forms of art exist. Rap music for example. Okay, that was a cheap shot.

This post isn't really about that question though, because everyone already thinks about that. What has been brought to my attention is the question as it applies to philosophy. It's interesting to me how some people love/hate, believe/disbelieve different branches of philosophy or arguments. Some people think certain branches are useless or stupid, while others claim it is quite necessary. I also find it strange, as someone who has studied academically, what others consider philosophy. Maybe I'm being a purist, so stop me if I start to sound too biased...

For those people who have not studied philosophy academically, I think it is rare to find someone who is smart enough to get it on their own. Frankly I believe that to learn philosophy, you require a collective attempt and intelligence, or you miss things. I had a friend who came up with his own idea, and even read a little on the subject, and loved to share his brilliant idea with others. Unfortunately, while he told my friend and I (us both having philosophy degrees), we thought of so many problems with his theories, we couldn't even begin to explain. For him, it was a great thought, and to us, it was just not tested enough.

The point is, I think there are people out there who don't think philosophy should be a challenge; it isn't just an argument with serious debate in an attempt to discover a deep unknown truth. I honestly think some people love philosophy that is not too academic, or too complex, but rather gives someone food for thought. For some, philosophy is a mental exercise, a game, to toss around for the fun of it. This is why some people don't delve too deep, or hear the questions without hearing the detailed answers. It is also why people make money on books that are like, "South Park and Philosophy" or "Batman and Philosophy", and other pop philosophy ideas. So many philosophy books are just a bunch of pages with examples of questions, and a half page theory to go with it.

For me, this is not philosophy, and these things make light of the seriousness of philosophy. Not that it isn't funny, but there books make people wonder why it is a university course. REAL philosophy, if I may call it that for this post at least, is a question or problem posed, seriously, for consideration in an attempt to find an answer where there seems to be inconclusive ideas. It is fun, but it is work, and there is so much to consider. Real philosophy is open, should be discussed and argued, and is full of passion. The pop philosophy books, and even movies like "Waking Life" don't really tell you what philosophy is like, and it even gives the real thing a bad name. It's making a very intellectual study into a passing curiosity. Realistically, because it is complicated, it does take massive amounts of time to properly cover what needs to be covered, and not everyone has the time, but for me, it should be understood that if all you've read are the pop philosophy books, watched the mind-blowing movies, and chatted with friends who seem to just be fascinated at all the "deep" stuff you think about, you are scratching the surface and should consider the real source of this brilliant study.

But the main point of this post is, am I right? It seems right to say art COULD be subjective, but when I think about something I am passionate about, it seems like I couldn't actually agree. I believe there is "good" and "bad" poetry, and I think that though there are slightly different ways to determine it, there are some universal good and bad poems. With philosophy, I know how I believe it should be, and would think someone telling me otherwise just didn't understand as deeply as I did. What I'm saying is, I want to be open to other people's ideas, but I want to be able to trust my own intelligence. I'm not so curious about art, but am I right when it comes to thinking philosophically? Not that you need to be academically trained, but if you want to get serious, you should at least talk to someone who's been in the field if you can. It's just so hard to determine if there is a universal "good" and "bad" philosophy. I suppose this is the philosopher in me, asking this.

Also, are there good and bad zombies? Not like morally, since they are either evil or neutral (since they're mindless), but could there be a zombie concept that is so lame it is a "bad" zombie? Do we have sparkling zombies yet?