/lit/ - Literature

Oh, look, another ethics/aesthetics, good/bad thread full of people who haven't read Korzybski yet.

Is there anywhere to go after Korzybski, or is he the end of philosophy?

"The worlds greatest philosopher, Alfred Korzybski, was giving a lecture to a group of students. He interrupted the lesson in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. He then tore the white paper from the biscuits in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them started to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also language, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."

>>6371473
>Hahaha are you seriously saying that right and wrong are linguistic concepts?
Am I being trolled here?

>If you're talking about the relativity of morality, then I wonder why you felt the need to drag that into a completely unrelated subject?
Because you don't seem to understand the notion of forms. If you can be taught to see how "Wrong-ness" is a linguistic concept applied to an action, or "big-ness" or "chair-ness" or anything else; if you can understand how these concepts are us describing things and there is no 'chair' form inside a chair and we apply the concept of chair ourselves, then you stand a chance of understanding why, as you claimed "One is most certainly part of a neutron." is fundamentally incorrect.

>Ever heard about a tree falling in a certain forest? Well that's still one tree and it still falls, regardless of whether I even exist or not.
The usual question is "does it still make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?" Regardless, relavant to our debate, you are still applying the notion of "tree-ness."

>Why does James Franco think that things are no longer objective when they get very small?
He doesn't, and that quote is actually from the mathematician Alfred Korzybski (pic related) not James Franco.