/lit/ - Literature

>Deep&E

Stopped reading right there.

it's good to not know lacan

>>1153637
if it sweetens the deal the second part of my name is Edgy

pretty cool huh?

> meet up with this loser guy I used to go to school with
>want to talk about normal people shit
>he keeps namedropping dead philosophers and writers in order to sound smart
>I don't know them
>compliment his intelligence so that he feels better about his worthless existence
>the word 'pretentious' annoys him but he's too much of a pussy to say it
>go home and get laid
>he goes home to 4chan
>mfw my life is awesome and his isn't

Damn, deepandedgy, I can honestly say I have had this exact same experience when talking to friends and it is completely depressing. I come on /lit/ to find people who aren't so brazenly ignorant, and it is the same fucking thing.

who cares

>>1153640

Not knowing something is never good.

>>1153659
how about not knowing to kill someone. check and mate

>>1153661

Do you mean not knowing HOW to kill someone? Because I'd rather know how than not know how, just in case.

>>1153663
yeah i meant how. okay next one, not knowing how to make and spread the AIDS virus

So, tl;dr, your friend doesn't feel the need to pretend his hobby is anything more than that?

Gotcha.

>>1153667
tl;dr his friend is a fukin n00b and he should shut his frikkin mouth when the big boys are talkin about literatyre + philosophy. sit the fuck down \__

lmao

wait so how much has your degree helped then if he's done the same stuff but seems to know nothing? or did he not do well?

>>1153666

>not knowing how to make and spread the AIDS virus

Could be a very effective weapon in certain situations.

>Come on /lit/ to discuss my days Wikitrawling
>Leave with green text stories

>>1153659
Not knowing Visual Basic is better than knowing it dumbass.

>>1153679
you monster.

not knowing how to hate <3

>>1153682
you basically eat everything that's visual

>>1153687
Scots dont have food.

>>1153690
whales do

people in elemtary school used to call me gizmo because i have big eyes and a roudn head lol

>>1153696
FUCKING LOL

ITT: Deep&Edgy discovers wikipedia

>>1153637
When Mogwai posted this image tons of trips showed up.

Makes sense since half of /lit/ doesn't know what sage does...

>>1153712

that's not true at all. the only tripfags i ever see anymore are mogwart, deep&faggy, and your sorry ass.

oh wait I forgot almost everyone on this damn board would not recognise a single person in my post as well

-_-

>>1153723
you obviously lie since D&E hasn't been on in ages.

>>1153728
no, i know Heidegger!

i read about him in the existentialism book that sasha grey read too. & you didnt answer me question earlier about the degree.

>>1153723
>mogwart
:(

what about Brownbread?

>>1153728
I hate you so, so much.

so, you know, good job on that one, i guess. you're terrible.

>>1153728

listen to yourself. almost every first-year college student knows of this bullshit, and every kid with access to the internet who gives a flying fuck can too.

you aren't extra special or smart for knowing any of this. you may be better educated than most people, but not all of /lit/, which includes a good number of college students and bookwormy high schoolers.

the reason nobody is talking philosophy with you is not because they don't know anything about it, it's just because you're an insufferable faggot. you don't say anything interesting at all, ever, you just shit on other people. when you decide to talk about something, it's never about a new idea or any genuine idea or thought at all. it's always "look at me, i'm better than you because i know how famous people think/thought and i learned it in college, where i am smarter than everyone!"

crawl into a hole and die.

>>1153750

ouch.

>>1153750
>listen to yourself.
I certainly am, because I happen to be one of the only people on this board worth listening to.

>you aren't extra special or smart for knowing any of this
Well of course not, anyone who studies literature (basically shit philosophy), real philosophy or basically anything worthwhile should know this. Which makes it all the more disappointing to see what is discussed here.

>good number of college students and bookwormy high schoolers.
Lol it's like you actually think academic status has anything to do with being intelligent

>the reason nobody is talking philosophy with you is not because they don't know anything about it, it's just because you're an insufferable faggot
Actually it's probably both, and really the thinking guiding the latter is down to the person being a worthless degenerate who doesn't understand where I'm coming from

>you don't say anything interesting at all, ever
Of course I do, I've made threads on Bloom, Chaucer, I've suggested good reads for people interested in Middle English, highlighted several of Schopehauer's essays, Orwell's discussion on writing, african-american poetry such as Amiri Baraka's, I've asked whether video-games can be texts, and so on.
This doesn't preclude me from doing this
>you just shit on other people
when people are being retarded on the board

>it's never about a new idea or any genuine idea or thought at all
see above

etc etc another enraged degenerate who doesn't follow me in the least, inb4 lolitrolu

>>1153776
i know you're just a troll, but honestly, kill yourself. you are the fucking worst, you are completely insufferable and annoying. go away, will you please.

>>1153750
seconded.

Guys it could be worse, I could be that jerk who keeps shitting up /lit/ with al green pictures

wait does he still do that?

>>1153776
Did you really just say that literature is basically shit philosophy? Actually, philosophy is for people who aren't capable of writing great literature. Literature communicates philisophic concepts but with vivacity and skill, whereas philosophy does so in a methodological way which lacks any kind of elegance or creative ability (usually, there are exceptions such as Deleuze who for some reason can write in a fairly creative way) If you really think philosophy is superior to literature, then you are the worst kind of follower. Philosophy is written for people who simply can not follow the axiom "show and don't tell''.

>>1153776

your statement was that people on this board would not recognize a single person. but way to toss in a red herring and talk about intelligence.

you've had like three good threads, and you mentioned them all. i may have missed others. the point is that i cringe every time i see your tripcode because you're just the epitome of a pompous twat, and i hate pompous twats more than i hate stupid twats. twat twat twat.

FIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

wow deepandedgy you are so smart!

>>1153784
lol, trying to throw someone else under the bus, huh?

get out

>>1153784
Dont start on me :(
I was being nice.

>>1153785
>vivacity and skill
There is nothing vivacious about discussing, for example, the problem of universals, the problem of induction, or basically any other philosophical problem. It is absolutely laughable to suggest that as an appropriate approach to philosophy. You want vivacity go for a fucking jog you dolt.

>skill
lol@vague


>methodological way which lacks any kind of elegance or creative ability
THAT IS THE POINT, SOME PROBLEMS DON'T NEED 'ELEGANCE' OR 'CREATIVE ABILITY'. MATHS EQUATIONS AREN'T ELEGANT OR CREATIVE, THEY ARE PROBLEMS THAT GET SOLVED. PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS AND OUR SOLUTIONS TO THEM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 'ARTISTIC ABILITY'.

'Great literature' is at best simply beautifully obfuscated philosophy, which is shit philosophy.

>>1153799
otoh, get out

no one likes you, you're an annoying fucking tit. everyone here thinks you're a complete dick. nobody thinks you're smart or values your contributions to a thread. we all fucking hate you go away for the love of god.

So basically if someone doesn't know academia's names and terms and what other people have said, they immediately have nothing worthwhile to contribute to any discussion?

Your opinion is pretty worthless, guy!

>>1153808
>So basically if someone doesn't know academia's names and terms and what other people have said, they immediately have nothing worthwhile to contribute to any discussion?

No brah that's not what I said, I was just disappointed a friend had absolutely no knowledge of any influential thought in the history of literary theory. Although frankly what you've suggested is more than likely true anyway.

>>1153795
at least you don't get ignored....

>>1153785
>Philosophy is written for people who simply can not follow the axiom "show and don't tell''
pretty sure that's actually sign language dude. Anyway that's kind of retarded because often showing = telling, see ostensive definitions

>>1153816

Really? Because I've always found that a lot of lit students just parrot back what other people have said instead of putting anything new into any discussion. They really use all this excess knowledge as a crutch more than anything else. I won't say it's completely useless or say as a blanket statement that it's not worth knowing (esp since that would be patently false), but it's always good to get the viewpoint of someone who isn't embroiled in the paradigm as you. They usually look at things from a different perspective and add something new to the discussion.

But hey, feel free to be continue being an elitist asshole. I'm sure that's not unbearable to be around.

>>1153799
why are you even on /lit/ when you denigrate it? you clearly are so uptight that you can't infer the connotative meaning of ''vivacity'' that i have suggested. Also, you are wrong philosophy is just weak literature, done by writers who must come right out and anounce their views rather than creatively render them within an artistic and creative medium. You are such a twit, saying that because literature is not like math, then it is somehow inferior. You really just don't understand the point of creative arts, and you constantly shit up the board because of this. Also, capslock is not cruise control for correct, and y u so mad? I wasn't on /phil/ saying that literature is greater than philosophy, you are on /lit/ speaking with angered pseudo-intellectualism. You've name dropped a few people and your friend didn't respond so you come bawwing to us, only to denigrate the artform which we are dedicated to. Philosophers have done nothing but usurp poetic truth, and this is demonstrated by Nietzsche in ''The birth of tragedy''..philosophers are weak creatively, they are on the same level as art critics--they do not contribute they only comment, such as you do--and such commentary is worthless to the arts. You lack imagination, and so you must be told what is ''truth'', etc.

>>1153822

>I won't say it's completely useless or say as a blanket statement that it's not worth knowing

I'll go ahead and say that for you, then.

Because it is.

>>1153821
ostensive definitions have nothing to do with the axiom ''show, but don't tell''. Showing does tell, but telling in stead of showing is something that poor writers do, as any writing teacher would tell you.

>>1153827

What are your thoughts on Kierkegaard?

>>1153818
haven't you started college yet or what goddamn

>>1153822
>it's always good to get the viewpoint of someone who isn't embroiled in the paradigm as you. They usually look at things from a different perspective and add something new to the discussion.
It is not always fucking good, it's actually often useless and unhelpful depending on what you're discussing. I cannot tell a good mechanic anything he doesn't already know about cars. An astrophysicist who has never read a single work of Shakespeare is not going to tell someone with a PhD on him anything useful or new about shakespeare. New = good.

>feel free to be continue being an elitist asshole. I'm sure that's not unbearable to be around.
Okay bro you feel free to be a pandering idiot who dilutes his expertise for the sake of the uneducated masses. I'm sure you'll get a lot done.

ITT fools feeding a troll's cry for attention. look how long OP's responses are. he just wants to fight on the internet(win the special olympics). I guess OP isnt so smart after all....

>>1153835
shut up, shut up, shut up

you terrible, shambolic piece of shit. go the fuck away, for the love of all that is good in the world, or at least stop being so much of an unpleasant, unbearable ass.

>>1153835
>haven't you started college yet or what goddamn
i've started university. I only have lectures next week though, no classes or lab stuff.

Has anyone seen my cat?

>>1153827
TOLD

>>1153832
Kierkegaard is one of the philosophers who I respect, and I said earlier that there are some philosophers who exhibit creative ability and eloquence. Kiekegaard, with his dialectics and pseudonymous projects produced something quite imaginative where at least he was not coming right out and saying what he thought, but in the end I do not respect any philosopher as much as I would a creative writer who can expose the same truths, expand on the same concepts and essentially do the same things as any philosopher, but who does so within a creative medium where the philosophic content is arrived at in an elegant and indirect way. To make a rather weak metaphor, it is like creative writers operate in 3 dimensions, whereas philosophers/theorists operate in only 2.

>>1153835

Actually, as someone working in the field of particle physics, I can say that even for me it's useful to break down what I'm doing in a very simple, easy to explain way and see what people who aren't science-minded at all think. Sometimes it's a waste of time, but sometimes it's worthwhile.

And that's a highly technical field. Not everyone can understand books on quantum field theory, but everyone can appreciate Shakespeare. That's kinda the point--a point you seem to be missing immensely. These books you're apparently devoting your life to weren't written for you. They weren't written for the elite at all. Literature is meant for the masses. It's meant to appeal to everyone in some way or another, and everyone should have something meaningful to say about it. It's useful to have your terms and theories as some form of intellectual shorthand, so you might fully form your opinion faster, but even people with no background in literary theory can derive meaning from a text, and if it's one you haven't heard before then it's worth listening to and thinking about.

>OP is clearly a filthy marxist
>thinks he can look down on anyone

>>1153843

I don't really agree with your point, but I can see where you're coming from and recognize that, on some level, it's valid.

So carry on, good sir.

>>1153847
hey DeepAndEdgy, I want you to look at this post and notice how the guy posting it isn't being a complete shitheel about everything but is instead being pretty reasonable and having an interesting discussion

maybe try that instead of being a fucker

>>1153847
I appreciate your candor, and I will admit I am taking my opinion to a sort of extreme in response to Durpandedgy's ridiculous claims. I am being sincere, though, when I say I value creative arts over philosophy--but that is not such a new idea.

>>1153827
>you clearly are so uptight that you can't infer the connotative meaning of ''vivacity'' that i have suggested.

>you are wrong philosophy is just weak literature, done by writers who must come right out and anounce their views rather than creatively render them within an artistic and creative medium
In some contexts it is appropriate to render ones views in an artistic and creative medium, it is counter-productive, regressive and stupid to approach the clarification of concepts (all that philosophy can be, and all that separates it from "art/creative writing/whatever nonsense waste of time you want") in this way.

>saying that because literature is not like math, then it is somehow inferior
putting words in my mouth

>the point of creative arts
There is no more point to creative arts than there is anything else, but creative arts ought at least to know its limitations and place in society

>artform
What a load of horseshit, anything is an artform if we so define it.

Anyway, you're that moron who conceives of truth as some 18th century literal nonsense, we in the 21st century know that truth is nothing more than emphasis. You enjoy criticising other people from a standpoint based out of nonsense while I make actually verifiable statements.

>>1153845
This is a good post.

>>1153856
>verifiable statements
>clarification
etc.
You are simply not an imaginative person, which would not be such a detestable trait if you weren't so keen on forcing these stilted views onto others in such an abrasive way. Also, it is ironic how you say ''artform'' can be anything if we so define it--you are showing that you don't even know your own dogma--when you say ''we define it'', who is ''we'' for instance? If you are so concerned with clarity, then how are you suggesting a completely relativist approach to definition? "We in the 21st century" etc...well, you really don't understand alteriority do you? You buy into cultural narratives wholesale, which is really funny because I have seen you on here saying that you like Foucault. If you had actually read his books, you would understand that making such broad generalizations about culture within certain timeframes is a completely misleading and mislead thing to do in a dialogue. Like I said, you clearly have no talent or appreciation for imaginative or creative arts (this you have pretty much said yourself) and you can feel free to piss of to /sci/ or wherever people are as uptight as you are. Also, saying ''there is no point to arts anymore than there is a point to anything''
>there's no point
crawwwwwwling innnnnn my skinnnnnnn

>>1153860
DAMN SON

>>1153860
>You are simply not an imaginative person
I'm a plenty imaginative person, but I'm at least capable of recognising when using imagination is appropriate and when it isn't.

>If you are so concerned with clarity, then how are you suggesting a completely relativist approach to definition?
It isn't fucking relativist, I am highlighting the fact that artform means nothing more, by the way it is used in our language, than what we want to highlight as valued, which could be anything.

>"We in the 21st century" etc...well, you really don't understand alteriority do you?
let me put it in a way that doesn't make you shit your pants over trivialities: TRUTH CAN BE NOTHING MORE THAN EMPHASISING A STATEMENT TO WHICH THE TRUTH IS APPLIED

>Deep&Edgy
>A kid still in school
>Considers herself precocious

that's one of the worst cliches. some people get over it by high school, but others carry that shit through college and it's laughable.

>>1153635
>>1153728
>>1153776
>>1153799
>>1153816
>>1153835
>>1153856
>>1153876

>>1153860
>Like I said, you clearly have no talent or appreciation for imaginative or creative arts
I can appreciate is as an enjoyable time-sink (which is all non-strictly philosophical literature can aspire to), like I do video-games. And in fact this is the appropriate way to appreciate fiction/creative writing etc.

>>1153827
agree. literature is the superior philosophy. it shoes philosophy in motion through the interaction of characters and setting. a philosophy that can't be shown is pure speculation and is totally useless to me.

>>1153876
"Art" is actually not relative, as it comes from the latin Artum--meaning skill. Art has also been culturally defined, and although the definition contains alteriority, it is a cohesive enough construct that Art is certainly NOT ''just anything''. Seriously, you don't seem to know much about art (which is fine, you clearly favor philosophy) but since you know so little you should ''pass over it in silence'' as Wittgenstein would put it. As for when imagination is appropriate, I just simply disagree with you, and it is a matter of taste I suppose, when you come right down to it. As for your concept of truth, I don't think it holds much weight. If truth is nothing more than a matter of emphasis, then why are you even arguing with me right now? Clearly there is more at stake than ''truth'' and what is going on is that we are engaging in a dialogue. I say this, because, legitimate philosophers since the 20th century have acknowledged that the role of philosophy is not so much about determining ''truth'' as it is creating a dialogue about truth. At any rate, I think your concept of truth is very limited, and while it may have a praxis in certain areas of life, in the arts it is terribly impotent--you seem to think that the creative arts are secondary, and since you have that assumption you could never feel as I do. I'm not so much trying to persuade you anyway.

>there's no point
>crawwwwwwling innnnnn my skinnnnnnn
Well fair enough, even if there was a real point to creative arts, anything beyond giving enjoyment to people (something achieved in many areas of human life) has been achieved particularly well by analytic philosophy.

>>1153897
>thinks literature is only entertainment.
>thinks philosophy is superior in its statements.

ohyou.jpg

>>1153904
shows not shoes*

>>1153905
>"Art" is actually not relative, as it comes from the latin Artum--meaning skill. Art has also been culturally defined
Neither of these equate to an objective definition of art, what has been defined as art has changed over time and in fact there is not even a universally accepted definition of art.

>Seriously, you don't seem to know much about art
THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO KNOW ABOUT ART, BECAUSE IT CAN BE WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO BE. AND, AS WITTGENSTEIN PUT IT, EVEN THE NOTION OF A SCIENCE OF ART IS RIDICULOUS.

>If truth is nothing more than a matter of emphasis, then why are you even arguing with me right now?
Because I feel like pointing out how your conception of truth is mere nonsense and completely undermines more or less every bit of horseshit coming out of your idiot mouth.

>Clearly there is more at stake than ''truth'' and what is going on is that we are engaging in a dialogue. I say this, because, legitimate philosophers since the 20th century have acknowledged that the role of philosophy is not so much about determining ''truth'' as it is creating a dialogue about truth.
Legitimate philosophers since the 20th century have acknowledged that the role of philosophy can be nothing more than the clarification of problematic concepts and made-up nonsensical problems arising out of grammar issues, and keep their mouths shut about objectivity, Truth or any other such time wasting.

inb4 that other little chestnut quotation of yours where you tell me a bus is going to run over me and I'll say something has finally happened. All because I know what philosophy is appropriate to address and what it isn't.

>>1153935
It's clear that you are just a fanboy of the analytic school and certain continental philosophers. at any rate, your opinion is pretty much invalidated by the fact that you reject the notion of actual knowledge in terms of art. You have reduced the realm of truth to such a limited scope, that any opinion you could have would be boring and sparse--which is clearly why everyone dislikes you on this board because you bore us to death and you get so incredibly mad so easily. Honestly, your views of art are pathetic--you reject the ability to know art because you yourself do not know it--there is something called intuition which I'm sure you reject and honestly it does not matter if you have found a few grand philosophers which challenge notions such as Aesthetic truth or intuitive knowledge, because there are just as many great philosophers who do not reject it. What it comes down to is this--you are clearly parroting some dogma from people you have read, and doing so in a clumsy way--if you have no knowledge of art, if you think there can be no knowledge of it, then do not engage in arbitrary evaluations of it in comparison to philosophy. Philosophy has clearly done you very little good, because you can hardly defend what you are saying. Art is most definitely not ''whatever we wish it to be'', the term itself is one of designation, of identity and seperation--it is not this bullshit relativist notion which you have unfortunately gotten from somewhere--when you bring down art you are only doing so in order to feel better that you are incapable of grasping it. It is like the typical betamale calling women ''bitches and whores'' because females won't give them a second look.

>>1153947
That is funny, because I hadn't intended to say it at all. You clearly do know what philosophy is capable of addressing, but your claim that literature is just ''poor philosophy'' is juvenile and reveals an ignorance so profound it is laughable.

>>1153963
>It's clear that you are just a fanboy of the analytic school and certain continental philosophers
And it's clear that you're a fanboy of a bunch of continental writers that were around before the advent of modern sentential logic and bunch of french assholes in the 21st century that pretended the tractatus never got written in order to keep their ridiculous nonsense in circulation, you have good taste in bedtime stories at least.

>You have reduced the realm of truth to such a limited scope, that any opinion you could have would be boring and sparse
That is because truth isn't interesting when you've clarified, it was only interesting, like any other philosophical problem, when it was surrounded by rhetoric, vagueness and ambiguity. Just like all writing.

>there is something called intuition which I'm sure you reject
It's not that I reject it, it's just that it's nonsensical to talk about it in any way.

>Philosophy has clearly done you very little good, because you can hardly defend what you are saying
I've yet to hear you invalidate a single point I've made beyond telling me I like the wrong set of philosophers or I don't know what I'm talking about.

>Art is most definitely not ''whatever we wish it to be'', the term itself is one of designation, of identity and seperation
It quite obviously is, it is as I have said, anything we want to place a sense of value on, which is ultimately arbitrary and the term thus itself is arbitrary

everything else in your post is bullshit posturing

>>1154000
>assholes in the 21st century
*20th but also no doubt extendable into the 21st

Philosophy is masturbation.
Literature is sex.
The former is one attempting to comment in broad strokes upon things with no substantive basis beyond "I said so" (though some philosophers are somewhat better than others on this) whereas the latter is one engaging in a dialogue with the reader to reveal philosophical concepts within a context, which can be all that grants some level of credence to what is said.

>>1154000
No, I'm no fanboy of any philsophy, actually. I would think that is fairly clear. The continental school is just as much a bastardization of poetry/literature as the analytic school. The one advantage of the continent is that instead of disregarding art, they engage with it. Analytics simply try to apply to art what is only applicable to geometry. The tractatus? Do you realize that Wittgenstein later in his career admitted that the Tractatus was inherently flawed? I have completely invalidated your arbitrary notion of philosophy being greater than literature by pointing out that what philosophy does, literature does in a more interesting, meaningful way. You have done nothing but half-ass some wittgenstein and you do it to his discredit. The term ''art'' is not arbitrary, you simply do not know enough about the subject to understand what the term signifies--it may be a term misused in the way you have said, but the misuse of a term does not make the term in itself arbitrary. The funny thing is that you are taking this analytic approach and yet you contradict it with this relativistic notion of the term ''art''--whereas if you were really engaged in analytic philosophy you would not be satisfied to say that art is simply an ''arbitrary'' term, but instead would point to what it indicates or at least have some notion of its use rather than just its misuse. Anyway, I am not into ''continental bullshit'' as I have said, I have very little use for philosophy in that it does nothing but bastardize poetics and it is produced by incompetent writers such as wittgenstein. Logic is fine for logic, but Logic is impotent for art.

>>1154026
>Do you realize that Wittgenstein later in his career admitted that the Tractatus was inherently flawed?
He pointed out that it wasn't the be-all, end-all of philosophy, but he didn't totally invalidate some of the lessons in it.

>I have completely invalidated your arbitrary notion of philosophy being greater than literature by pointing out that what philosophy does, literature does in a more interesting, meaningful way
You haven't because you've completely misconstrued the point of philosophy (which under your understanding can be reduced to literal nonsense)

>I have very little use for philosophy in that it does nothing but bastardize poetics
Well I'm afraid it'll keep being useless to you when you don't understand what it's meant to be about :(

>The funny thing is that you are taking this analytic approach and yet you contradict it with this relativistic notion of the term ''art''
Okay, I'll clarify again. The meaning of art, or any other term is its use (perhaps this is a good roadsign for you), and we use the term art to put a higher status on something, a value. But value, if we want to talk about it at all, can be no more than relative, ultimately we can't talk about it at all because value is outside of the world.

This obviously happens to everyone who is talking to much names. The question is not wether or not its ok to drop names, its what will happen if you do so.
People will always react annoyed, because when they here those Names they sense the power of authority (in the literaly sense, that is) and they know that they cant compete with all the work that is behind reading those text.
So they feel empowered. But luky for them, there is the consense of the majority, wich does not read those texts and they have a shitload of thoughtfigures that denounce the people who do so. And using them they turnaround their actual inferiority into a factual superiority.

The trick for me is: dont use the "big" names and words. Try to find a way to communicate the ideas behind without hitting the antiintellectual alarmclocks most people come with ex factory.

Be socratic!

>>1153635
>tl;dr wall of greentext

>>1154052
Art is not just a word to assign higher value..as i said earlier ''art'' comes from the Latin ''artum'' meaning skill--it designates a set of developed skill and the products of those skills. It actually only indicates a higher value over something that is amateur, but in other ways the word ''art'' does not indicate the level of value of the object that it indicates--only that it indicates the product of a set of skills. You are confused by the relative way it is used by some people, to indicate that something is valuable culturally, but that is a misuse and so you are arguing against a strawman.

>>1154052
The thing is, I acknowledge the limits of philosophy as you have determined them, and because of those limits I do not think philosophy can have much of an impact on me, since what philosophy considers unnecessary, i consider to be essential. I really only took issue with you saying that philosophy was greater than literature, or that literature was just poor philosophy--the entire idea is bullshit because literature does not try to be philosophy.

This threads wayyyyyyyyyyy 2deep4me

>>1154079
>set of developed skill and the products of those skills
And what is this but that which is valued? And haven't I already said that 'art' is what we designate as valued?

>it indicates the product of a set of skills
Too broad because it includes more or less everything artificial, unless you're talking of art in terms of 'the art of fighting etc

To everybody in this thread.

>realize someone is smarter than you on the internet
>go into chronic hyper-denial and produce blame involved with wikipedia urgently.

>>1153635
D&E, I'm just gonna say this, we can debate beliefs that you and anonymous hold all day long, but the real reason that no one here likes you is because you're acting like an asshole. I say acting because this may not be you in real life. I really hope this is true. If it is, I feel sorry for anyone who knows you. But the point is, if you wanna debate different philosophical viewpoints, if you wanna talk about literature, if you wanna say anything here without anyone thinking you're an idiot, you should be able to do it without being an asshole.

>>1154105
No, for instance, a writer learns skills--grammar, story telling, sentence construction, typing or whatever else. The application of these skill are what makes it ''art''. A painter will learn how to mix paint, to draw for perspective, color theory, etc. When the painter applies these skills he is making art. The skills may be applied with more or less rigour and this is what seperates high quality art from low quality art. The culturally centered definition of art is indeed a limited one, and the confusion comes from the question being asked ''is this art?'' It is a question of language and luckily, we can innovate terms to indicate difference (e.g. the difference between ''fine art'' and the art of masonry for instance)

Op, you should be ashamed for even giving the üntermensch another chance.

Once üntermensch - always üntermensch.

>>1154118
I think it's funny. He can be quite witty sometimes.

>>1154136
You don't really believe that do you, Stagolee?

>>1154123
Are you seriously telling me there was an application of any skill whatsoever in this? And I mean people actually think this is art despite the complete lack of skill. We're not going to get anywhere with this, you could probably argue something akin to it having a fucking skill of placing shit, or that we've got a specific term for this ridiculous stuff, but as far as I'm concerned meanings for words are determined by their use, and use changes over time and is by no means objective.

>>1154118
I make plenty of polite comments and threads, it's just anon gets pissy when I call him a degenerate. And anon likes to remember the bad rather than the good :(

>mfw people respond to Deep&Edgy like he's not a gigantic troll

Everybody seems to think I'm lazy. I don't mind, I think they're crazy. Running everywhere at such a speed, until they find there's no neeeeeeeeed.

>>1154142
Well, warhol was a well-trained artist actually, and he was well-respected as a commercial artist. Warhol has certain conceptual abilities--his pieces such as the one in your picture are a kind of semiotics, but yes there were skills involved in the making of it. I think you confuse what you think of as ''quality'' art with the term art itself, it seems like because art has been used over time to indicate different kinds of art, to you this means that art can have no meaning. The truth is that art has a very basic meaning, and because of the simplicity of the term, it can be applied to many things and still not be ''arbitrary''. Art cannot be applied to someone taking a piss on the sidewalk--but, if someone were to do so as ''performance art'' applying the skills learned as an actor in the theater or on screen, then it is art. Art is defined mostly by the skills that are applied and the intentionality of the artistic agent. It isn't a vague term, it is just a very simple term. You don't say the word ''orange'' is arbitrary because it is used to describe so many different hues and objects.

>>1154152

I defend DeepandEdgy because, tripfag that he may be, he at least contributes to threads with thought-out and engaging argument as opposed to the other fucks, who shan't be named here.

>>1154163
>You don't say the word ''orange'' is arbitrary because it is used to describe so many different hues and objects.

you should've said this 109283094823 posts ago. it would've saved a lot of time.

>>1154175
Nobody cares.

>>1154177
haha if only i could have thought of it faster--honestly that is why i come on /lit/ and argue with strangers; it helps me to flesh out certain ideas that i have.

>>1154175

That and DeepandEdgy was on this board way before /b/'s inbred rejects stumbled into it. Back in the day D&E was pretty great to have in threads because he contributed like an anon.

Sadly, /lit/ has turned into such a FUCK OFF TRIPFAG ALL TRIPFAGS MUST DIE GAAH I HATE TRIPFAGS (for good reason [@nowai, tyfag, brownbitch, fagolee etc]) that when people like D&E who have actually been here a while try to make /lit/ related threads they're sabotaged by everyone turning them into DIE TRIPFAG threads.

Every tripfag post-D&E should die, but D&E is actually a pretty good guy. I've been around /lit/ since the beginning and D&E's proven his own.

He even sages himself if the content of his post isn't literary. I have yet to see any other tripfuck do that.

The rest of you fucks, get back to being literary and stop bitching.

>>1154188
yeah i've been arguing w/ d&e this whole time and it's been a lot better than 90% of time spent on /lit/. D&E is like an onionring-tier trip (he's pretty cool, and will actually argue with someone about philosophy and literature without sounding like a total moron or resorting to spamming quotes)

>>1154188
I was around when D&E first showed up. I've been around since the beginning of /lit/. He was never a good contributor. All he's ever done is troll. Just because he disguises it as sincere discussion does not mean he's not trolling. Not every troll is a Stagolee clone.

>>1154188
Storm Petrel can be okay sometimes.

>>1154188
Magowai sages all the time

>>1154188
you're retarded. i'll admit d&e makes a good argument here and there but generally the trolling is obvious. are you sure you aren't new here?

>>1154188
>its the sabotages that ruin it
>but that means all post-DE trips are shit, because they didnt post before people got mad
>He even sages himself if the content of his post isn't literary. I have yet to see any other tripfuck do that.
>I have yet to see any other tripfuck do that
why the fuck do i even try? i'm not arguing against a record i've given myself, i'm arguing against one everyone else has given me.

>>1154188
I don't think anyone trashes certain other tripfags like Isabelle Huppert, pretty sure lots of people just dislike D&E for whatever reason

>>1154197

ad hominem attacks will stop if you get rid of your hominem

>>1154197
Nobody understands you like I do, Stag. :)

>>1154188
I think that /lit/ has been pretty anti-tripfag from the beginning (remember GamerGirl? ah, heady days, heady days). and the problem I have w/ d&e is less his actual contribution to the board - i agree with you, he's competent and actually has some knowledge of what he's talking about. my problem is that he's literally a complete ass. and it's not like this is some kind of vendetta - i don't really post in philosophy threads, just lurk them. d&e continually and always is an insufferable dick about everything.

if he stopped being so annoying he'd be pretty alright, no doubt there - but he won't since i really think that he's a troll.

>>1154200
She's not Stagolee, who is sometimes actually funny and has a little bit of subtlety

>friend doesn't know nor care about post-modern, post-struc., post-BLANK theories WHOOP DEE DOO

>>1154203
>I think that /lit/ has been pretty anti-tripfag from the beginning
There have always been some cool tripfags around too tho, e.g. Historian (who's been gone for a while sadly)

>>1154207
ouch :(

i wish i could come up with creative on-topic threads like stag but i'm not very creative.

>>1154215
oh absolutely, no doubt. tripfags aren't bad by any means, just that there are some who are really annoying for a while and then /lit/ starts to hate on them

>>1154216
Female stag
makes love to
Male stag

>>1154221
he wouldn't. he's a popular guy irl & i'm a psycho freak with no friends.

>>1154231
friends are like cancer you have too much of it and you'll die... I'll be your online cancer :D

>>1154231
>Stagolee
>popular irl
Nah, he's just as anti-social and annoying as you are, don't worry.

>>1154247
nope he has friends on msn & said he doesn't add people from 4chan.

>>1154240
i just want some physical affection...

>>1154256
she wants to fuck

>>1154262
casual sex is fucking disgusting, pig.

>>1154256
He's trying to appear internet cool. He trolls 4chan, I can tell you he's got about 4 friends, five of which are cats.

>>1154267
she wants to hold hands?

>>1154269

Okay guys me and that gentleman who got has the wrong idea about philosophy duked it out for a while can we like let the thread like die now lol?

>>1154269
I'll bet he can at least do basic math though, wtf

>>1154283
Not until you get the right idea about "Art"

sage

>>1154276
>

>>1154271
i want a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggg waaaaaaaaaaa

>>1154283
this is my thread now, you dolt.

>>1154283
it's the post-game commentary.

Hello, I'm jus gonna take over this thread.

>>1154294
/lit/ loves me more than u

>>1154289
>>1154289
I'd hug you with three crowbars!

2-0 down, 1 man down.
Good start.

wat is this thread

>>1154301
maybe you could read it & find out

>>1154304
it started with mr.deep being edgy, ended with crowbars. i don't know what to make of it.

>>1154311
ITT: /lit/ admits it eats 4 rolls of toilet paper a week.

Thoughts on post dramatic Russian Depression.

>142 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>Everybody mad
>Off-topic spam
>and Trip meta on top of that

The question is if /lit/ just trolls itself, or if DeepandEdgy is a god-tier troll.
Probably a little bit of both