/lit/ - Literature

>>7235334
I already told you, you publish in a small house to get attention. Even when selfpublishing you should focus on the phisical copy, so you can show it to agents and publishers. Yeah, there are a few cases where a selfpublished work gets enough traction that it gets a publisher attention, as a 4channer you can seriously say that you're gonna write something millions of people will read and push to their friends until you appear in good morning america? Internet success without some corporation behind you is impposible to control, redlettermedia got the first million views out of a furry site and cartoonist get more attention giving away zines than with websites. You can try playing the game, but don't pretend that there are more authors living off writing through the Amazon model than through classical working up the ladder and making friends in publishing houses.

I'm off my computer and I don't have spellcheck here, I'm sorry for the mistakes.

>>6883342
I like you.

>>6883633
Heidegger does this through his beloved hermeneutics. He focus on analyzing the experience of different works and from there he proposes the characteristics that he thinks are common to everything to produces an artistic experience.

>>6883654
Marx Hibari isn't too much of a buff on the subject, she just realy likes it.

>>6414901
Yo tampoco, tranquilo. Pero entonces dos cuentos de tres mil palabras y uno de menos de mil.
Nada más necesitamos al anon que estaba haciendo su propia Lolita y estamos hechos.

>>6359152
Trappist monks don't get money form the state or the church, they win their own money working. Muslims rented parts of the mosque to merchants to pay their expenses, they even payed taxes in a lot of places. Buddhists monks live in more or less self sufficient farms. Are you saying that all of them aren't gethered together specially to think about stuff?

>>6359166
in order
>how useful you are to the state isn't the same as how much you think in political and social terms, an autist that can solve the most challenging mathematical mysteries wouldn't be a particularly good party leader

>how well you invest money is tied to having that money, or being able to convince other to give it to you. no successful economy minister has come from wall street or any local version of it.

>so?

>if they're allowed to exercise their field, if you are a great scientist hated by all your peers you'll have a lot of troubles to get work done in your lab. this has nothing to do with big scale politics.

>That's plainly not true, they are trust fund owners and investors. As a country you can't do either of those things.

>Silicn valley has existed as a thing for less than 20 years, it hasn't proven anything besides being quite able to fuck it all up like they did in the 90's

>because priests were the only ones who could get an education before the minuscule system and other standardizations, you're taking facts backwards

>the ones in power should open the way for those who aren't, they obviously don't. that doesn't mean people wouldn't have the capacity to do it.

Now, think how much "succesful fields", like sillicon valley, exist thanks to people already in power opening doors to them: government contracts, tax exemptions, low interest loans. That says nothing about how smart or capable to govern they are.
You still haven't explained how you know workers wouldn't be able to understand complex economic variables when the people who study that for years and decades can't avoid having a market crash one a single country cuts their petroleum (70's crash) when a new field stagnates (80's technology crisis) when a cheap scam sounds too good to be true (90's dotcom crash) when the government allows a scam (housing bubble). For all we know some dude ina factory could do a much better work.

OP, the only elements of Kant's understanding of aesthetics that remain important are aesthetic disinterest (the idea thta to enjoy art you should have no intention at all, so you can received the full blast without ending up confusing other feelings with those the work generates) and the sublime (mostly as a jumping board to diferentiate art from cultural industries). Reading Kant for aesthetics is a silly way to start, the vague points he makes are brought up by posterior writers and worked around anyway. Same with Hume.

I'd recommend starting with Adorno and then jumping to Benjamin, is quite easy to distinguish which are the books related to aesthetics and which are general social studies for the titles.

>>6059775
>>reading the third Critique first
also this

>Goethe
His more of a color commentator, like Artaud, but there's little method in the studies Sturm und Drang did. You end up with lots of cool general ideas but only each author could expand on them because you're not seeing the basis of their analysis, just the conclusions.

>Nietzsche
I doubt his stuff will be easier to grasp out of context than Kant.

>>6059825
His thesis are, it's the same with science. You read to see the justification, just like you check the experiments done to test a scientific theory.

>>6059832
lol

>>6059868
You're taking it all out of context. Of course someone born 200 years after that in a society where some people study kant in posterior writers in HS will have incorporated subjective judgement, but back in his time there was a lot of effort to justify beauty as an universal value. It was like that since Plato saying beauty is the connection with objective true ideas to Saint Augustin saying it was the connection with god to the Renaissance and the Querelle saying that beauty was the perfect equilibrium of nature mixed with an original idea. The idea of purely subjective feelings didn't come into play until the 1950's, you were just born into it and take it for granted.

Kant does a lot of mental gymnastics to justify Enlightenment ideas, that was his job. Everyone knows those ideas were weak and had a clear tendency in favor of european bourgeois a priori ideas.

>>5944396
It sshould be a joint.
"It’s a metaphor, see: You put the happiness thing right between your teeth, but you don’t give it the power to do its joy."
That's 4chan.

>>5722572
Avril

>>5664140
Es terrible, de una mala manera.
Te amo igual, anon.

>>5631351
The topic of how to detect artistic value is one of the main columns of aesthetic theory, I feel that any explanation I can give you in 4chan at 3 in the morning will lack a ton of needed stuff. In absurdly general terms I'll just say that the question of how do we judge the value of a work has been loosing strength since Hume kicked that ball and that the modern interpretation focuses more on what happens after the reception: impact of the work among peers, among the public, how it interacts with the language, what is being said through it, among many things.
There's no point in asking yourself if a work has "artistic value" because you just recognize it or you don't, it's a very finite instance. If you don't you move on with your life, but if you do that's when philosophy and critic enters to play.
Discerning the merit-ness is just a pissing contest that should be ignored.

>>5631354
I explained myself better in >359 . Was it something else that you disliked?

>>5621860
I mean, as in, write stuff. Re reading it is horrible, but you have to edit your stuff so it's a necessary evil.
I guess working out helps, and getting a job does too.