/lit/ - Literature

You may kill the threads but my autism will survive the death of the universe. In any case, time to repost.

>>13742785
I'm quite ignorant myself when it comes to just about any and every subject but here especially. I gauge that, even when making a digital drawing, you still have what he describes as "particles breaking off of the artist's writing utensil", though the drawing itself is at that point more just pixels and bits of data and such. Again, not exactly qualified to make distinctions here.
As far as the post itself goes it's not a bad start but it has issues. Saying a thought is just chemicals, albeit really complex ones, would be debatable but also a position I can understand someone taking. A concept, however, seems to me like it should be unrelated. Naturally you think or talk about concepts, yet the concept itself is certainly not the same as the thought or word or saying used to describe it or inquire into its nature, so it feels off to me if you were to say that the concept itself is merely chemicals. Aside from that, the notion that our imagining or witnessing of what something has gone through is the main trait from which we derive the beauty of a being or object is somewhat dubious. It's not entirely wrong, as I can see someone appreciating a diamond or any other gemstone on the basis of the many, many years necessary to form them. Similarly, you can say something of that sort for flowers, as you may at least partially imagine the many flowers that came before it, and the state in which it is now. Ultimately I have to disagree as I feel like the current state of a thing, along with some of its other attributes (which admittedly are connected with the thing's history) also play a large role, as well as any possible 'symbolism' that we attach to it based on our personal experiences. I could go on and on. Better not to go overboard.