/lit/ - Literature

>>2053655

forgot trip

>>2053593

Neither. Your failure to understand is based on your cognitive limitations. That you don't understand my argument is a result, not a cause. You dipshit.

I quoted Keats because he was expressing a similar sentiment to yourself (albeit in a more meritorious way). I wasn't trying to suggest that you think beauty is truth. I was trying to suggest that you, like Keats, think that beauty and truth are objective concepts that we can "strive towards."

If our notion of beauty is based on evolution (and the evidence is compelling that this is so), then beauty is a subjective concept that comes from 'man' and as such, the notion of 'man' striving towards it is absurd. Even worse, if our concept of beauty is a result of evolution, then it isn't even a subjective concept that is an ends unto itself. At best it merely provides selection advantages; at worst it is a spandrel.

My main point however, was that you don't know what 'beatification' means. Reading down the thread, it would seem you don't know what most of the words you employ mean.

>Because the painting of Madonna is the mere full expression of man's determination of beatification.

>Man lives and works to seek what is beautiful.

>beatification.
>beautiful.

>What say you?

I say you should find out what words mean before you use them. by the way, your notion that beauty is the most important human endeavor, summed up by Keats as "beauty is truth; truth beauty - that is all you know in this world and all ye need to know", is lovely, but wrong. Our notion of beauty is merely a result of evolution, when we say something is beautiful or ugly, we say more about ourselves than we do about the thing.

I want a girl who wants a guy who doesn't want a girl who wants a guy who wants a girl.

I had this idea a few months back OP. For all of about five seconds I bathed in the wonderful delusion that I had alighted upon a unique concept, then I realized that something so obvious was bound to have been attempted before - did a quick google search and voila, all my delusions of grandeur quashed.

>>2046918

I feel your pain. What I'm most sick of is all the people who automatically assume that if you disagree with Dawkins you must be an avid Christian.

>>2046927

Nope. Dawkins endorses that shit in his crappy books, and even if he didn't, fuck calling yourself a "bright" on the basis that you don't believe in God. The arrogance is appalling, and unfounded given how many militant atheists are anything but bright.

>>2046837

I'm sorry, I was just being glib - I recently re-read The God Delusion to reaffirm my opinion that it is a steaming pile, and your language and outlook was highly reminiscent of Dawkins on meaning through the beauty of science etc (incidentally the only part of the book that was OK).

>>2046809

Oh hi Dawkins, how's it going?

>>2046798

Well, you would know.

I can't believe how many of you angsty teens trot in here and divulge what should be an obvious starting premise as some sort of shocking epiphany.

Allow me to educate you. Everyone is aware of this. Everyone has had this thought. Your parents have had it. Your friends have had it. That really stupid dude on the school football team? Yeah, he's had it too. It simply isn't an interesting or novel thought, and for that matter, I think 'existential crisis' is the supreme hyperbole the way you people seem to use it.

Most people just shelve these thoughts and get on with the inevitable process of living. A few select, very clever, people grapple with the problem and try to work out some sort of system that either solves, or mitigates, it. unsuccessfully. Both these groups of people are more interesting than the third group - the group that just sits around being angsty, harboring the delusion that if only everyone else was equally perceptive, they too would sit around whinging.

>>2046658

Stories don't need a neat, tidy, ending. That is artificial, and outdated. You shouldn't be afraid to leave things open and unresolved, as long as you've achieved what you wanted to prior.

>Am I wasting my time if I look hard for complex motifs and symbols?

Believe it or not, literature has a few more tricks in its bag than that. The reason you aren't 'getting' Middlemarch is because you can't appreciate subtlety. Books that rely on obvious symbolism and 'deep' motifs are the literary equivalent of blockbusters.

I subscribe to The New Yorker, Newsweek, and New Scientist, read Wall St Journal, and NY Times online for news coverage.

>>2046508

Do I? Or are both possible?

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/tcpiptutorials/f/change-address.htm

>>2046502
>>2046499

>im just a girl.

This is where you fucked up... enjoy the neckbeard shitstorm, and remember not to mention gender in future.

Google yourself up some proxy sites, or reset your router if you have a dynamic IP and you'll be assigned a new one.

>>2023357

Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Nice pic, but I have a better!

>>2023302

And, astoundingly, you forgot music.

>>2023291

I mean they are shit, as in they constantly shit-post. Brownbear and Fab both make a tonne of posts that have absolutely no redeeming qualities. I don't find posters 'shit' merely because they have opinions I disagree with.

>>2023274

I'm nothing if not cunning. But srsly, I generally enjoy D&E, he's often on topic, and argues in a more sophisticated way than most of the board. Stagolee and Behemoth are neutral as far as I'm concerned, and Brownbear, Fab, etc are pure shit.

That seems about right OP.

>>2023252

I believe that's his way of saying that you sound like you're on Bob Dylan's dick.

Feel free to depart it any time you like, don't let us stop you.

>>2023093

Oh cool, nah I'm doing a B.A./ LL.B