/lit/ - Literature

I'm right here.

>implying theists are intellectuals

I am always being called an intellectual.

But most of those I talk to don't understand words with more than 3 syllables.

:\

Feels bad man.

Also, Kinda in the mood to write a book about a particular diagram I drew up

Atheists aren't intellectuals?

How stupid.

hello

define intellectual

>>1121642
Cut out any thoughts of a divine ANYTHING, you cut out deep conscious questions.

Go pretend you're an animal.

Io sono un intellettuale.

>>1121637
>atheists

>>1121649
Atheism doesn't reject the transcendent - just the supernatural. Giving supernatural explanations any merit is absurd.

Go pretend you know God.

>>1121637
You know what's worse than pseudo-intellectuals. Pseudo-intellectuals in denial.

>>1121649

Utterly and totally disagree. Once you cut out the pointless questions of supernatural creatures, you can focus on things that actually MATTER.

The word 'supernatural' is pretty useless if you take into account that all explanations are inevitably based, when it comes down to axioms, on that which is naturally unexplainable.

breaking hearts & saving lives itt

No atheist is an intellectual. Well, very few rather.

>>1121660

Like what? How awesome your ipad looks next to your copy of Dawkins?

anyway the entire natural/supernatural/non-natural/all-natural set of distinctions is stupid and nonsensical to begin with.

EGO sum non an intellectual , EGO sum iustus faggot quisnam venio consumo quattuor annus in universitas eruditio meaningless res.

>>1121668
>>1121668
>>1121668

This.

>>1121667
This. You people seem to have no idea that a period called the Enlightenment took place.

>>1121643
what's a syllable? OH MAN YOU'RE SMART!! HURR DURRR

>>1121667
I don't know, I think it's more the people who tell everyone how athiestic they are, that lack intelligence.

>>1121681
According to them I am.

>>1121676
Quentin any postmodernist you pull off the street can tell you that the project of the Enlightenment failed

>>1121686

Why the hell would anyone care what a postmodernist thought? They're exactly what we're criticizing.

>>1121686
That's why postmodernism is a worthless pseudo-philosophy.

>>1121686
I'm joining your fanclub. How often do you update your blog?

>>1121691
How often do they let you out of the old folks home grandad?

>>1121691
You are an idiot for saying that, and using a wicked straw-man. "postmodernism'' does not exist. There are theorists who examine what they call ''postmodernity''. Postmodernity has never been a 'philosophy' and in fact has nothing to do with philosophy. There are no ''postmodernists'' either. Christ, why doesn't /lit/ understand this?

This thread was clearly a cleverly designed intelligence test

The intellectuals would notice it is a troll thread and move on

The pretenders would bump the thread.

>>1121700
Do you not understand what the word "pseudo" means?

>>1121709
Okay I was a bit hastey. I do understand ''pseudo'' but it is not a 'pseudo-philosophy' through any effort of actual critical theorists. people on /lit/ who don't understand that there is not such thing as ''postmodernism'' consider it a philosophy. I just think that you can't even call it a 'pseudo-philosophy' because postmodernity in no way resembles a philosophy. would be like saying an orange is a pseudo-apple

>>1121700
I don't usually quote from plato.stanford.edu but I am too fucking tired tonight;
"it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices "
postmodernism is a label bro, get over it

>>1121717
I won't simply ''get over'' the fact that empty nominalism preempts any real discussion of post-modernity on /lit/. Also, simply because someone has given a vague definition of ''postmodernism'' does not mean it is a term with any substance, and I believe the standford definition even begins with saying defining it is problematic, etc. basically excusing the entire definition for having no real substance. To be accurate, there are theorists, and some of these theorists sometime examine post-modernity. Post-modernity is the collective identity of cultural/social/political conditions as an extension of, or completion, or deconstruction of ''modernity''. Post-modernism, if it is ANYTHING is a term for the arts, where ''modernism'' was an actual school or genre in the visual or literary arts. People on /lit/ who call foucault, derrida, deleuze etc. ''post-modernists'' are guilty of ignorant nominalism. They fail to understand that these theorist examine cultural post-modernity, or sometimes artistic ''postmodernism'' but this does not make them ''postmodernists''.

>>1121729
TLDR I SPOTTED LOTS OF PRETENTIOUS BULLCRAP THOUGH

You've got to be kidding about post-modernism not being a legitimate philosophy. It's as legitimate as phenomenology. I suppose existentialism isn't a philosophy either, due to it dissension of epistemology.

>>1121744
There are no ''postmodernists''. There are theorists who discuss post-modernity or 'postmodernism'' in arts. Calling any theorists a post-modernists is like calling Kierkegaard or Heidegger an ''existentialist''.

>>1121729
>I believe the standford definition even begins with saying defining it is problematic, etc. basically excusing the entire definition for having no real substance

Lol yeah that's pretty much it. But aren't we able to say the same about any other philosophical tradition then?

>>1121729
Or they simply codified the theory of post-modernity. Seeing as how post-modernity is not the subversive of what is modern, but the proceeds of modern thought. Derrida, Foucault, Debord, Eco, Borjes, Beckett, Burroughs, Keruoac, Thompson, Ginsberg, and even Danielewski (to name a contemporary) all understood / understand this. Thus, the contributions they have made. Though, one might object to Debord being mentioned, given he's the father of "situationism," but a true "situationist," would never be incumbent of the label.
tldr Captcha was object amight. I have a mighty objection, consequently.

>>1121757
What i mean is that both Kierkegaard and Heidegger wrote on existential themes but calling them existentialists is pig-ignorant. I really think nominalism sucks, and you should too. It obscures the real significance of the work.

>>1121757
Pretty much answers what I'm asking. The terms are used as a label for easy reference and I don't see what the huge problem is if we both understand what's being referenced.

>>1121767
I don't think they have codified it, I believe they have attempted to describe it, and the voracious appetite of the hollow term ''postmodernism'' will swallow up anything to make it whole. I don't object to Debord being called out, I think Vaneigem was a worse theorist of situationism, but a better situationist.

>>1121768
Then the correct term for a post-modernist would be an absurdist, academically.

>>1121776
Well I think people should just refrain from the convenience of using this word to describe people as different as Derrida and Foucault or Deleuze and Zizek.

Such an obvious, septic troll thread.

It's such an obsolete argument anyway, now that we are aware that the nature of the universe allows it to create itself.

So there really is no point, we are all going to die, and the more time we spend arguing over backward middle eastern fantasies means we have less time to relax and being happy with our bros as we enjoy the brief but precious 80 year ride of consciousness we have.

>>1121775
How has it not been codified? Post-modernism is not an epistemological school of thought. It's pure speculative philosophies strewn throughout to form a singularity. Which is one of the philosophical implications of post-modernism. That consciousness is not a singularity but a pluralism. A teleological unification for the sake of consciousness. Even Sartre said consciousness is consciousness of something. Ergo; it's consciousness coming into being for the sake of the teleological.

>>1121786

Uh, the universe created itself? We have proof of this? Okay.

>>1121788
>Which is one of the philosophical implications of post-modernism.
No, it's actually one of the implications of structuralism, a more apt term for most of those thinkers.
>That consciousness is not a singularity but a pluralism
More like a fragmented, multiplicity of singularities, taking into consideration ''difference''
>Even Sartre said consciousness is consciousness of something
I don't think so, I think Sartre was suggesting Consciousness is something in-becoming and not something-in-itself. I don't know for certain, and would like to hear more about it.

>>1121800

That's the conclusion Stephen Hawking and a majority of other scientists have came too, yes.

He basically came out as an atheist.

>>1121813
>causa sui
sure is another word for God in here.

Anyway guys we can't talk about or refer dogs as dogs itt because they don't consider themselves dogs :(

Can agnostics report in to this awful thread, just to make our presence known and claim our place as the only rational individuals in this debate.

>>1121817
Your place is on the fence, you pussies.

>>1121817

>Don't chose a side
>Don't get taken seriously by anyone
>Claim superiority

>>1121813

I wasn't aware science was dictated by baseless endorsements. For an atheist, he sure believes some pretty unverifiable things.

>>1121804
Actually, they would be more along the lines of post-structualists or desconstructionists, which is the term Derrida coined.

The fractured multiplicity statement is a sign you're a staunch phenomenologist.

and Sartre's theory was one of plurlaism, not of fractals. Very few people actually understand Sartre. The in-itself that he was addressing was the Hegelian in-and-of-itself. Which is the progenitor of the "fragmented consciousness," theory.

what's wrong with hipsters. Being hip just means you're better than everyone else. It doesn't mean you can't be an intellectual.

>>1121827

Don't get taken seriously by anyone? Who cares? Atheists don't take theists seriously, and theists don't take atheists seriously. You're a moron if you think someone who is uncertain about the single most important question in the world is foolish. Grow up.

>>1121832
well, perhaps you are right about phenomenology but, I will say that I think post-structuralism and deconstruction are just aspects of structuralism and not seperate entities at all. In fact some of the most prominent thinkers labeled as ''post-structural'' or ''deconstructionists'' refuse the label ardently and I think for good reason. They are simply working within structuralism. As for Sartre's pluralism, I still don't understand how that can work with his idea of individual agency, the idea that you are responsible and free to define your existence. I don't really know if I totally understand Sartre, but then again I haven't read much by him.

>>1121831

He wouldn't claim he's an atheist, probably because of the resentful public connotations of the word.


He is, however, one of the most prolific physicists to have ever lived, so it would be even more strange if he didn't have some kind of scientific evidence for his viewpoint.

The scientific evidence you're talking about is called M-Theory, and he said:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

>>1121845
Pluralism *is* individual agency. And they'd refuse the label of structualism all the same; for the sake of it being a label.

>>1121842

Of course it's stupid to be 100% sure about the nature of the universe, it's stupid to be certain about a great deal of things, such as the existence of extra terrestrial life.

However, to not even believe things based on probability, which in the case of God is overwhelmingly against the existence of a supernatural entity capable of creating himself and the universe, is foolish.

>>1121847

Yeah, I've heard that all before, and it's just as hokey now as it was then. That's a seriously lazy scientific conclusion, saying something is the way it is because it is. What he's really saying is that science, as we know it today, is incapable of understanding the universe. How he came to the conclusion that that meant the universe created itself is beyond me.

>>1121842
Not that guy but...
>the single most important question in the world
Are you serious? Nothing really changes in our lives if a god does or does not exist. If he does exist and tomorrow doesn't exist and the next day does exist for some insane reason, nothing changes.

>>1121864

I love how you think it's at all possible to calculate the probability of whether God exists or not. Give me a fucking break.

>>1121876

Hah, you've got to be kidding me, right? You don't think anything would change if it was 100% verifiable fact that there was no God, and that we had scientific evidence to back up that claim? Wow, you're naive.

>>1121857
Pluralism is incongruous with phenomenology in this aspect: pluralism defines the whole as a whole, only in the sense of it being comprised of its constituents. Phenomenology views the whole as such; complete. That the existence of the thing, then precedes its essence. Which was a point Sartre made. However, Sartre went on to say, the the whole was only whole in the matter of which it is defined. Then again, I may be assigning my own definition to Satre's words

Thomist reporting in.

>>1121857
i don't think it's just because of it being a label. I think the idea that post-structuralism is something seperate kind of inauthenticates the work of Foucault, et al. It is a subtle way of making their work seem less legitimate (well it was, when Structuralism was at the fore-front of academia) I think it was a roundabout way of calling their work ''little structuralism'' or ''structuralism jr.'' at any rate, I suppose plurality consumes individual agency, but..i don't know i suppose i need to read more Sartre.

>>1121887
Only in human relations. On a day-to-day basis, nothing of importance happens. Refer to my example. If god did exist today, and stopped existing tomorrow without you knowing, would anything of importance really happen?

OK AGNOSTICS

FORMAL LOGIC 101

YOU DO NOT NEED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE PERSON MAKING A CLAIM
BY YOUR LOGIC, YOU SHOULD BE AGNOSTIC ABOUT SANTA CLAUS, THE TOOTH FAIRY AND EVEN MYSELF AS THE GREAT CREATOR DIETY

OBVIOUSLY THAT IS STUPID(EXCEPT THE LAST ONE)

CRUISE CONTROL OFF

>>1121878

I love how you think the chances of a supernatural, supervisory being who isn't bound by the laws of the universe and is capable of creating himself existing is exactly 50-50 with the chances that the nature of the laws of the universe allow it to create itself.

>>1121868

Yeah it is beyond you.

>mfw when Quentin's easymode trolling turned into a two-way discussion between this one guy who gets mad at people who have the audacity to use labels and another guy, and generic religion debate

Bravo Quentin, back on form!

Reporting in. Sadly there seem to be alot of pseudo-intellectuals that have already shat all over the place

>>1121903
> Implying Jefferson, Franklin and Darwin were Atheists.

Someone doesn't know what a diest is...

>>1121903

Jefferson was a deist.

>pseudo-intellectuals

Dear lord I hate this phrase

In reality, it means: 'someone discussing a vaguely academic topic with a viewpoint I don't like'

>>1121893
Again, I don't think that's the case. I believe it was to mark advancement.

>>1121907
You're now my best friend.
- Another guy.

>>1121915

Darwin denounced his faith when his daughter died, I don't know enough about Jefferson or Franklin to comment though.

>>1121921
I agree that that the work of people like Foucault and Derrida are advanced structuralism, but the use of the phrase ''post'' implies that what they have done has somehow transcended or took place after the completion of structuralism. I think that these works advanced towards the completion of structuralist projects, but it isn't really seperate, it is advanced theory within the discipline.

>>1121930
That I'll agree with. The syllogism is complete, and we were speaking the same language after all. Huzzah.

hooray for /lit/!

>>1121903
I love how you think the chances of a supernatural, supervisory being who isn't bound by the laws of the universe and is capable of creating himself existing is exactly 50-50 with the chances that the nature of the laws of the universe allow it to create itself. See: >>1121864

In other words, you're a self-contradicting moron.

>>1121959

Nope, because in that post I said that it was stupid to be absolutely certain of these things, but quite right to believe (or not believe) based upon overwhelming probability.

That's the point.

>>1121903

There is no evidence of the universe creating itself, however. Why you would think the probability ratio would be different than 50:50 doesn't make much sense, since gravity does not follow conventional law. How does a universe creating itself out of nothing seem any more plausible than there being a creator? The mathematics behind it is complete phooey, and to say otherwise is hilarious. You can't prove the existence of God with mathematics, sorry.

>>1121972

Because infinite regress.

>>1121978
Aristotelian bro-fist!

My real problem with Hawking is that he doesn't have the courage to come out and say that he doesn't know, but instead he decides to come to some illogical conclusion that the universe created itself because of spontaneous creation. That's ridiculous. Seriously, if you believe everything Hawking says, then you're crazy. He says a lot of things that are completely unprovable and bullshit. His entire reputation of late has been the projection of bullshit thought unassisted by, you know, undeniable proof. Sensationalist science at its best.

>>1121972

>since gravity does not follow conventional law.

What the fuck are you trying to say here?

Anyway, check out M-Theory, a collective of theories which point to the universe's ability to create itself through the law of gravity.

The chances that a supernatural being sprang into existence on it's own accord and proceeded to become the architect of the universe are astronomically small, and there is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis.

>>1121984

If this was your real viewpoint, I'd be worried it'd be used as evidence to support the argument for mass, involuntary eugenics.

Thankfully, we know you're a troll.

>>1121986

Isn't M-theory related to string theory? I was under the impression string theory was on the way out?

>>1121997

How do you relate what I said, which was that science requires proofs, with the support of eugenics? Seriously, what the fuck?

>>1121986
Isn't that kind of a non-statement? "The Universe Created itself out of nothing due to pre-existing mathematical laws"

Why should anyone with an Aristotelian/Thomistic view be at all threatened by this statement?

>>1121998

M-Theory is constructed around the reasons why string theory failed. It ties into the multiverse theory, that there are an infinite number of universe which an infinite variety of laws and constants and only those with adequate universal values remain stable, like ours.

>>1121998

No it's coming in. They're waiting for the LHC to make some experiments to test it.

>>1122004

read this:

>>1122006

ignostic reporting in. if god does exist, it doesn't really change anything for me, does it?

>>1122006

It's a nice idea, but it's only a theory. I'd willingly change my mind if I saw evidence for it, but as for right now I'm extremely skeptical.

>>1122013

Except for the part where you go to hell. It's probably for the best though, since god is a murderous bastard and the devil is a pretty cool guy.

>>1122012
but even the multiverse theory wouldn't conflict with a Thomistic understanding of God. I think what often happens with these discussions is that we confuse temporal creation with Metaphysical creation.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1571

>>1122029

A theory is a belief supported by evidence, you're thinking about an hypothesis.

>>1122037

Metaphysical creation is nonsense, though.

>>1122047
Damn you continentals!

>op implies religion has effect over intelligence in this day and age
its education that controls intelligence

>>1122047

Yes, I am aware of the distinction. My point is that M-theory is not completely air-tight yet. There is some evidence for it, but it's not a complete theory by any means.

>>1122034
truth. Paradise Lost ftw. at any rate, i'll just recant on my death bed for safety.

>>1122058

I think the OP was poking fun at liberal Americans that obnoxiously title themselves atheists without being asked, or without really having thought about it.

>>1122058

I don't think you can teach creativity, genius, or talent. Those things are governed by our genes.

It doesn't detract from your general point, though.

>>1122029

New poster entering this fray.

I prefer the mathematical solution of a perfectly flat universe, where total energy is 0 because the negative energy (gravity) and positive energy (matter) equal 0 when added together.

That means the universe is just a mathematical construct arising from nothing (zero), but existing as two halves of that zero (1-1).

>>1122065
>Those things are governed by social, economic, cultural and historical conditions.

fixed

So is it possible that the universe was created in a wave, and that wave will return to destroy the universe until it begins anew?

>>1122059

It's not a law, if that's what you mean.

Complete theories don't exist, evidence is added and detracted as new scientific discoveries are made. You are right in saying that M-Theory does rely upon other less evidential theories, however when the LHC properly functions it is expected to provide substantial evidence for M-Theory.

If not, the theory can be amended.

>>1122070

No.

You can teach people to be great at playing music, but you cannot teach people to create great music. You can teach people to be great mathematicians, but you cannot teach people to be great mathematical thinkers like Einstein.

>>1122058

cough*NO*cough

Education increases the amount of information you possess, but it doesn't increase your ability to process that information or decipher something useful from it.

You can teach knowledgeability, but you can't teach intelligence.

>>1122081
>great at playing music
This is a matter of social, cultural, historical, economic conditions

>create great music
see above

>great mathematicians
This is a bit more concrete but in the end it's still a matter of above

>>1122086

I've known brilliant high-school dropouts, and I've known fucking retards with PhDs. Of course it's good to be educated, but no amount of education is gonna confer intelligence if you didn't already have it.

>>1122098

Are you saying that you can take any child, and as long as you raise them in the correct conditions you they will be able to write music like Bach or Beethoven?

Perhaps, if your idealistic sentimental view of reality was real, we could create a utopia in which we would raise a generation of Mozarts.

>>1122107

This.

Ignore Deep&Edgy. He obviously has never heard of twin studies.

I'm mostly liberal, but this is one area where the bleeding-heart libs can suck a cock. They like to think you can polish a turd.

>>1122107
I don't even know why I am spelling the self-evident out for a halfwit such as yourself.

I am saying that Backhkhkh and Motesart are only 'geniuses' in relation to these social/historical/economic/cultural conditions. How else would one be able to determine one's 'genius?' Genius has nothing to do with the person.

>>1122117

ignore this idiot who doesn't understand in the least what I am getting at and actually thinks this has anything whatsoever to do with genetics

>>1122123

Actually it's the opposite, Genius exports itself regardless of it's audience, not adhering to the current trend or fashion.

Beethoven was abhorred by his society for what was seen as radical musical style, and favoured the much more intricate and "modern" composers.

Genius is rarely appreciated in it's time, and is not for a particular historical or social climate, but for all time.

>>1122123

Well, fuck, of course in a vacuum no one could be ascribed any qualities, since there would be no frame of reference. What's your point? But it's still true that if you take the whole of humanity, you're going to have some people with more musical talent than others, and some geniuses and some dumbasses.

>Intellectuals report in.

>... atheists ... need not post.

Well then, that rules out the entire human race. Maybe someone in a chronosynclastic infundibulum could reply.

>>1122141
>Beetthoven was abhorred by his society for what was seen as radical musical style, and favoured the much more intricate and "modern" composers.

cool example of one set of social/historical/cultural etc-because I-am-fucking-tired-of-writing-this conditions

>all time
Name a single genius who has been recognised as such throughout all time, and I hope you have a crystal ball at hand

>Genius exports itself regardless of it's audience, not adhering to the current trend or fashion.
Oh man it's like I'm really talking to the eighteen hundreds.

>>1122142
>you're going to have some people with more musical talent than others, and some geniuses and some dumbasses
And this will be determined again by social/historical etc conditions
My point is that 'genius' does export itself, it is imported

>>1122166

>Name a single genius who has been recognised as such throughout all time, and I hope you have a crystal ball at hand

Johannes Gutenberg. Thomas Edison. The guy who invented the wheel.

>>1122166

>>1122188

People were actually pretty pissed about the printing pressed

>>1122197

Press, even.

>>1122188
>throughout all time
>throughout all time
>throughout all time

Cool dude are you from the future? Furthermore, are you capable of fucking reading?
Anyway, I've always thought Edison was a bit of a chancer, not really genius material as far as I'm concerned.

>>1122196

Hey guys look, I buried him!

>>1122197

That may be so, but no one ever denied its genius. Same shit with Nikola Tesla. They thought he was a lunatic and kicked him out of town, but they never said he wasn't brilliant.

>Name a single genius who has been recognised as such throughout all time, and I hope you have a crystal ball at hand

Aristotle. He taught Alexander the Great so he was obviously renowned in his own time. The next 1.5k years were pretty much a commentary on Aristotle, and after that he was recognized by pretty much everybody as a (somewhat obsolete) genius.

>Obvois troll thread

+120 replies

God dammit. Back in my day trolling meant something.

Are you guys all fucking myopic or what?

>>1122207
>throughout all time

>>1122201

Well, then, by that dumb definition if would be impossible even for an eternal deity to name one, since all people have to be born and thus cannot have existed infinitely into the past. So no, no one is a genius "throughout all time", lol, eyeroll

>>1122203

Oh I'm sorry, you're not a troll?

How awful for you.

Late to this foray...

I think these examples are not the best because many of these people are credited as geniuses because their works elicited a response which was a matter of taste.

Better examples would be individuals who have talents in competitive fields, such as athletics.

Or even those who worked in fields of mathematical study, such as Einstein or Planck.

So the question comes, in the form of an example, would two people who live under identical social, historical, cultural and economic conditions, but have different genes, be equally good at, say, basketball?

My answer is no. What is yours?

>>1122224
I guess I can probably say 'throughout all human history' instead, which is still ongoing unless we've all joined hands in a marxist circle while I wasn't looking or something.

>>1122233

That was exactly my point in:

>>1122107

It's been spelled out already, we're dealing with an obsessive troll.

>>1122236

The only time frame that is fair to require is "from the time of their existence up until the current moment." Our lack of a time machine should not be a reason to discredit someone's objective genius.

>>1122233
>would two people who live under identical social, historical, cultural and economic conditions, but have different genes, be equally good at, say, basketball?
No, but I never said that identical social historical, cultural and economic conditions rendered everyone identical. I said it determines what we call genius.

Anyone else to try putting words in my mouth?

>>1122247

But it doesn't, because creativity and talent are objective qualities. Whether we appreciate them or not, it doesn't make them go away.

>>1122245
>The only time frame that is fair to require is "from the time of their existence up until the current moment.

Who made you arbiter of what time frame is fair or not? Forgive me if I don't want to be a presumptuous asshole and flip the bird to the future.

>>1122247

I sort of get what you're doing there, and I'll probably be the only person here to defend you. But you need to get better at explaining yourself clearly.

>>1122255
>creativity and talent are objective qualities
yeah bro I remember you parrotting this yesterday or whatever too
No they're not, and if someone disagrees with you on who's creative and talented all you have is at most an appeal to the majority, which is simply fallacious

>>1122255

You always need to know something of the context of art to determine its quality. Would a sufficiently intelligent alien recognize Wagner as a genius? Probably not, right? The same goes for any sufficiently intelligent human who doesn't know what Wagner is trying to do. If it seems like these things are objective it is because we've absorbed so much of the context of works through cultural osmosis.

>>1122247

Refer to your post here.

>>1122070

You said governed creativity, talent, and genius, because you replied to a post where someone explicitly stated those parameters.

Governed =/= defined.

Governed in the sense the poster you replied to used means regulated or limited. Societal competition may define the talent, creativity or genius of someone based on an equal comparison, but it does not regulate said talent, genius, or creativity.

Genes define such a limit, which is what you disagreed with, unless you wish to retract your use of the word governed and admit your error.

>>1122292
>Governed in the sense the poster you replied to used means regulated or limited
Govern as in decide or determine. Also, meaning is arbitrary and a matter of convention, you peabrained little shit.

>>1122292

should be Genes govern such a limit

Typo

>>1122276

I completely disagree, composers like Bach are adored all across the globe and appeal to a wide variety of people.

Genius music is graded by it's ability to resonate with the human mind, which is the reason it would not appeal to aliens.

I do believe, however, that if Aliens knew this music was intended for humanity and knew a great deal about what it means to be human, then they could see the genius behind it.

>>1122276
Wagner? Bitch please the Aliens would be all, "Man Wagner's a Teutonic fuck who gets funded by a bat shit crazy king in Bavaria but my God this Felix Mendelssohn fella is amazing"

I'm assuming these aliens have taste mind you.

>>1122313
>Genius music is graded by it's ability to resonate with the human mind
what an anthropocentric account of music

>>1122323

Our brains, especially our midbrain, is very similar to that of other animals.

My argument still stands.

>>1122313

>Genius music is graded by it's ability to resonate with the human mind

Lady Gaga seems to resonate a lot more strongly with people these days.

> a great deal about what it means to be human
>what it means to be human

And you think concrete conditions don't have any relevance to this?

>>1122330

>Our brains, especially our midbrain, is very similar to that of other animals.

That has absolutely no bearing on what I'm saying

>>1122331

>Lady Gaga

Absolutely, great example! A great number of people are swayed by her infectious and repetitive lyrics.

>what it means to be human

It is you who holds the view that human beings are all born as completely malleable entities who can be moulded into any personality or talent.

I meant human nature as in our collective appreciation for music.

>>1122349
>collective appreciation for music
You're pretty good at this appealing to the majority thing you know.

>>1122331
>Lady Gaga seems to resonate a lot more strongly with people these days
Argumentum ad populum

This thread is stupid in a boring and quotidian way, let it die

>>1122349
Are we putting Lady GaGa on the same level as Johannes Bach? I really hope not...

>>1122339

I'm sorry, were you being deliberately vague?

I assumed you were trying to scold me for saying that music should be graded purely for it's effect on humans as it affects other species too.

It's funny how namefags can't just leave the thread when a discussion becomes embarassing, they just have to keep going so it doesn't look like they lost.

>>1122354

It's different, you're twisting my words.

I'm talking about the ability of certain pieces of music to affect a universal audience regardless of background or culture because of it's cognitive resonance with our minds.

You are trying to say that I am saying genius must exist because x number of people enjoy it.

It's the DIVERSITY, not the NUMERACY

>>1122349

>It is you who holds the view that human beings are all born as completely malleable entities who can be moulded into any personality or talent.

Nowhere did I say anything like this. What I said is that knowledge of the context in which a work of art is produced is necessary to judge it. One cannot just throw on a record and understand what is going on. It's like cracking open a book in Spanish when you don't even speak the language. "Genius" doesn't tell me anything about a work--at what? What is this genius doing? Free of context a second-rate imitator could easily be taken for the original.

>I meant human nature as in our collective appreciation for music.

This has nothing to do with discerning the quality of any specific work. All it says is that humans like rhythmic noise.

>>1122355

>derp

>>1122368
>I'm talking about the ability of certain pieces of music to affect a universal audience regardless of background or culture because of it's cognitive resonance with our minds.
You are talking about something which you have yet to prove exists

>>1122372

>It's like cracking open a book in Spanish when you don't even speak the language.

No it's not, because language is a purely socialised ability, nobody is born knowing how to speak.

How do you explain, however, that a child with no musical education or knowledge can be stimulated by certain music?

>All it says is that humans like rhythmic noise

And that some "rythmic noise" is superior to others, and that ones ability to create truly exceptional "rythmic noise" should be regarded as a talent.

Stop saging you asshole

>>1122384

Bach has been appreciated as a genius for 300 years, and I'm guessing that you agree with me that western culture has certainly changed in that time.

>>1122391

No.

>>1122394
300 years is comparatively short considering we've been around for much more than 2000 years and probably will still be around for quite a long time yet

>western culture has certainly changed in that time
Of course, but the fact that it's changed doesn't mean Bach will survive later change

>>1122385

>a child with no musical education or knowledge can be stimulated by certain music?

Yes, and if you yell at someone in any language you can make them feel threatened. So? This doesn't, at all, allow you to evaluate any specific work! Playing music for feral five year olds is not going to tell you about the religious significance of some of Bach's works, or how his music is structured, or how it works, it won't tell you how he differs from his contemporaries, it is as close to useless as it is possible to be.

>some "rythmic noise" is superior to others, and that ones ability to create truly exceptional "rythmic noise" should be regarded as a talent.

You cannot tell who is and is not exceptional outside of the concrete historical conditions in which something was produced. For all the average person in Haiti knows there were a thousand other Bachs and each one was better than the one we know.

>>1122407

There is no evidence of him dropping in popularity.

If you want an other example of art which has resonated for an even longer period, think of the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which are around 500 years old and are still held in deep reverence in our civilisation.

>>1122420
>There is no evidence of him dropping in popularity
doesn't mean he won't

>500 years old and are still held in deep reverence in our civilisation.
oh shit bro 200 more years, well that completely changes everything. No. You can go back as far as you want, it still doesn't guarantee a work's standing in the future.

>>1122423

I think it does, "bro".

The differences in culture have been so fundamentally diverse, our basic perceptions of reality have been changed and expanded and still this art is held in the highest possible regard.

I think it's a very dangerous concept for your skewed ideological beliefs.

>>1122429
>I think it does, "bro".
Well, if thinking made it so, you'd be set

>our basic perceptions of reality have been changed and expanded
I'm afraid not, we've been seeing things in three dimensions and in color, perceiving time etc for quite a long time now

Dude are you even trying to make the garbage coming out of your mouth sound convincing anymore?

>>1122419

>Playing music for feral five year olds is not going to tell you about the religious significance of some of Bach's works, or how his music is structured, or how it works, it won't tell you how he differs from his contemporaries, it is as close to useless as it is possible to be.

No, even if the subject of Bach's music was something completely polar to religion, it would still be regarded as genius because of the emotions it arouses within us. The intricacies of the music are irrelevant when compared to the ability of the music to manipulate our thoughts and emotions, to raise our consciousness towards the appreciation of beauty.

>>You cannot tell who is and is not exceptional outside of the concrete historical conditions in which something was produced.

If Shakespeare had written Hamlet in the 16th Century or the 20th century, it would still be regarded as a masterpiece.

>For all the average person in Haiti knows there were a thousand other Bachs and each one was better than the one we know.

So you do appreciate that creativity is something inherent? And you're argument is moot, we appreciate Bach because is he one of the best we have discovered.

This does not refute my point.

Critic clocking in here. I think Deep&Edgy's style is unnecessarily inflammatory and he's not very good at explaining himself clearly, but there's some sort of snazzy perceptiveness we're missing here. He might be an overlooked genius.

I should like to have sex with him.

Pic related.

>>1122440

>Well, if thinking made it so, you'd be set

You can see I went on to support my argument, why are you trying to invent flaws in my logic?

>I'm afraid not, we've been seeing things in three dimensions and in color, perceiving time etc for quite a long time now

I was talking about our perceptions as a civilisation, our views on government, crime, religion and science.

Not all of us cruise through life seeing things only on a purely superficial level like you. Perhaps this is why you cannot understand my argument.

Narcissists report in.

Dignified people, those who aren't full of themselves, etc., need not post.

>>1122458

>even if the subject of Bach's music was something completely polar to religion, it would still be regarded as genius because of the emotions it arouses within us.

Emotions are subjective and aroused far more easily by the shallowest of pop music, there is nothing in them that allows for an "objective" evaluation of an artwork. It is also completely ridiculous to imagine that a religious context cannot alter radically radically how we receive a work.

This permits no rational inquiry and no argument about quality. Your arguments result in a flattening of affect and an almost complete dissolution of diversity. You might as well reduce all music into one sickly grey mess.

>If Shakespeare had written Hamlet in the 16th Century or the 20th century, it would still be regarded as a masterpiece

This presupposes that it would be possible for him to write that same play and, much worse, that the words would have the same significance at all times (if he had written it in the late 20th, does that mean he'd be referencing DFW when Hamlet speaks about Yorick? How would that change the understanding of the play?).

> creativity is something inherent?

Sure, but being able to recognize it depends on context.

>And you're argument is moot, we appreciate Bach because is he one of the best we have discovered.

That knowledge is part of the context in which you receive Bach's music. It is not contained in his works themselves, it is not something that anyone could just pick out of them.

>>1122461
>unnecessarily inflammatory
The smart people won't take any notice of it, the degenerates will be knocked out of focus by what amounts to nothing but noise

>he's not very good at explaining himself clearly
Bro, I'm not going to spend 10 minutes writing out an argument with clear premises and a conclusion on a site like this, this is not the proper forum for rational, reasoned and calculated debate. This is a forum for shit-flinging.

>>1122465
>support my argument
You're not supporting your argument, you're saying the same things over and over and which I have already pointed out to be flawed and inconclusive

>government, crime, religion and science.
That's quite a jump from 'basic reality' you wishy-washy faggot.

>>1122485

Wait, you don't think a societies views on law and order, the afterlife or government are fundamental perceptions which drastically alter their way of life?

>Emotions are subjective

No, emotions are an object quality of humanity. If Lady Gaga more than you as much as Beethoven moves you, then that would actually make a lot of sense.

>You might as well reduce all music into one sickly grey mess

You're right, If I only appreciated music as a collection of references and connections then yes it would be meaningless. However, I, like many other people who appreciate classical music, adore the profound resonating brilliance of Bach's music above the sociological context in which it was composed.

>>1122513

My apologies, I forgot to link the rest of my comment after
>their way of life?
to: >>1122484

>stagolee thread
>174 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>1122513

>No, emotions are an object quality of humanity.

Herp. Look up what subjective means.

>However, I, like many other people who appreciate classical music, adore the profound resonating brilliance of Bach's music above the sociological context in which it was composed.

Hahahaha oh wow, you are quite the self-fellating talent my friend!

This means nothing for evaluating whether or not he is exceptional. You cannot have a rational discussion of quality that consists of nothing but "It makes me, like, feel, man." What if you had never heard of Bach, but only one of his imitators? Would that mean the imitator was objectively a genius, just because he makes you feel, even though everything depends on another's work? Just whose reactions decide that someone is objectively a genius? How can you even use the word "objective" when you don't permit any rational inquiry and constantly refer to emotional reactions?

Deep&Edgy, this is for you:

Somebody told me about you earlier this week (about the squabbling nonsense that you pedal out by the wheelbarrow full)--needless to say, after reading the posts in this thread, after being given a firsthand account of your dumbness, I have concluded that that person's tale should have been taken as a warning: 'don't read the posts--they burn!'

The fact that I could easily select your posts from a list (because they give off the stereotypical 'snide, conceited tripfag' air) should tell you something: you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded. You couldn't take me in a game of Monopoly. No sir. Consider transferring to business school.

Truman, this is for you:

Come on, MAN! What did I tell you about stupid people?

>>1122586
but he's smart & i like him <3

>>1122559

Just because emotions are subjective doesn't mean they aren't aroused through an objective process, and it's the -ability of the music to genuinely and profoundly stimulate this process, regardless of the individual, that identifies a piece of music as exceptionally great.

I just want this thread to go away. If you guys feel like doing this, take it elsewhere (ffs, it's not impossible to exchange contact information on 4chan, regardless of what you've been told).

>>1122603

>just because emotions are subjective doesn't mean they aren't aroused through an objective process

If the process were as "objective" as you imagine it to be and not dependent on context it would work for every human--but it doesn't. Is there also some special talent for recognizing greatness? Who gets to decide just who has this and who doesn't? People get angry, depressed, joyful for different reasons, there is no concrete formula to produce the same feelings in all humans.

>regardless of the individual

There is NO music that does this. None.

>>1122619

You're right, no music has completely universal appeal, humans are far too diverse. However you must agree that if we concentrate on the diversity of those affected by Classical music you will find that it some music has affects a greater number of people regardless of their socialisation. It's not so much a talent as it is a particular structure of the mind, a common biological angle through which impulses and sesnsations affect us in a similar way.

Music which fits perfectly, which resonates harmoniously with these perceptions can be said to be great.

>>1122678

>Music which fits perfectly, which resonates harmoniously with these perceptions can be said to be great.

And if it turns out that the music which affects the greatest diversity of people is just a 4/4 bass drum, does that then become the product of genius? How disappointing for music as a product of human ingenuity.

asdf

>>1123808
lol

oh youuuuu

>>1122678
>>find that it some music has affects a greater

>>1122586
>squabbling nonsense
You don't know how to use either of these words properly, and these happen the be the two words which effectively sum up all that has come out of your idiotic mouth about me. Kill yourself subhuman scum.

>>1122678
Bro I'm still waiting on that example of genius that has persisted throughout all of human history which is currently ongoing, when are you

>>1123819

-going to deliver

>>1123820
don't bother coming back ;)

>>1123819
coldplay

holy shit this thread is still up??!?!?

>>1123819

Stupid response (wrong too; those words were used properly). You enjoy pointing at people, evidently. Also, "kill yourself"? Oh, come on, I've heard better. Show some creativity.

>>1123996

Naw bro like really, kill youself XD

Trolls > People getting trolled aka probably u

>>1124011

I chuckled. You can still do better.

>>1124021
Of course I can, that goes without saying.

>>1124022

Call me Tyondai.

And.

Bumping from page 15.