/lit/ - Literature

>>2538863
I've studied literature academically and came to the conclusion that academics are rather lousy at justifying the superiority of their choice of art. Sophistication is no argument for the superiority of a work of art. I wouldn't even know how to define sophistication except for pretentious complexity. The dictionary does a fine job however:

so·phis·ti·cate (s-fst-kt)
v. so·phis·ti·cat·ed, so·phis·ti·cat·ing, so·phis·ti·cates
v.tr.
1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.
2. To make impure; adulterate.
3. To make more complex or inclusive; refine.
v.intr.
To use sophistry.
n. (-kt)
A sophisticated person.

>If you legitimately are entertained by it and aren't watching it just to scoff at the fact that you're watching it, then I concede my argument. It's just the way you proudly declared yourself as a hipster set off a red flag in my mind.

I didn't declare myself a hipster, I just stated that I would rather be a hipster than someone who only consumes popular or classic art/media. Also, I'm indeed legitimately entertained by it. Sure, a part of that has a certain 'watching caged animals and laughing about them' feeling to it, but that is how shows like Jersey Shore are meant to be as far as I know. Not many people who watch it truly identify with the romantic struggles of miss Snooki.

>>2470297

Well, Lao Tzu didn't exactly work with evidence or proff in his work, but it's quietist tendencies are obvious. The same can be said of what is known about Bodidharma, the wall gazer who dismissed scholarly Buddhism in favor of direct experience through meditation and is the legendary founder of the Zen sect. Pyrrho was an extreme sceptic and arrived at quietism simply by concluding that you couldn't know anything anything, so prancing around debating all kinds of philosophical questions was seen as futile. One should rather suspend judgement. Epicurus was quietist in the sense that he dismissed a lot of philosophical questions of his day and because he saw ataraxia, a tranquil state of mind, as the way to happiness, which he deemed the goal of philosophy. The quietism of Palamas is a different thing alltogether and more of a mystical religious thing. They have in common that none of them thought that mere rational thought was able to lead to answers to most of philosphy's questions. Which is why:

>>2470305

doesn't make much sense. It's like saying COME BACK WHEN U ALTRUIST in a discussion about egoism. To answer him anyway: "Nothing is knowable, so suspend judgement" is about as rational as it gets. The problem remains that when nothing is knowable, there isn't some singular path of action that follows from that as you obviously have no way of knowing what would a a rational way of doing things. Things such as ethics are per definition beyond the domain of the rational, since it deals with values. Values are never wholly rational.