/lit/ - Literature

Law = Theology > Philosophy > Fiction = Stem

>>14766547
Yeah OP that is p much just true

TRUTH = LIE

>>14766547
shit = post

logic is aesthetically beautiful

is that pic from logh?

>>14766614
BASED!

>>14766564
Theology > Philosophy = Law > Psychology

Ear>Sceptre>Island>Lotus>America>Cigars>Soviets>Congo

Aesthetics=Metaphysics=Ethics=Logic

>>14766547
Aesthetics is too easily subverted by homosexual histrionics.

>>14767379
is oscar wilde the ur-example of this

>>14767379

Yes.

>>14766547
maybe if you're a teenager or in your early 20s

>>14767426
no, logic is for teens, the progression goes

logic-->epistemology-->metaphysics-->ethics-->politics-->aesthetics

>>14767426
>>14767432
hmm or maybe it actually starts at aesthetics and then loops back

aesthetics-->logic-->epistemology-->metaphysics-->ethics-->politics-->aesthetics

>>14767415
no mishima is. wilde is shit in every regard.

>>14767432
This is almost correct.
First philosophy -> Metaphysics -> Aesthetics -> Ethics -> Politics

>>14766547
aesthetics means too many things to too many different people. That word needs to be subdivided

>>14767760
This one is more sound.

>>14767760
>>14767771
aesthetics is pre-philosophical

Aesthetics was a term and a field of study created by a German in the 18th ce. Plato and Aristotle never talked about that pseud subject.

>>14767783
actually it was invented by the pseudo-longinus in his first century work on the sublime but go off

Logic=Aesthetics>Epistemology>Metaphysics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Politics>Ethics

>>14766547
doing what's based>>doing what's aesthetic>>>>doing what's "moral">>>>>>>>>>>>>doing what gets you ahead in life>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doing what makes you coom>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doing things for women

>>14767773
Philosophical aesthetics is obviously philosophical and in fact metaphysical.

>>14767891
philosophy and metaphysics, just like everything else, are fundamentally aesthetical

>>14767840
what's the difference between based and aesthetic, is it like the difference between the beautiful and the sublime

>>14768019
idk. what's based is always aesthetic, but what's aesthetic isn't always necessarily based.

>>14768034
well both the sublime and the beautiful are aesthetic, and you'd probably associate the based more with the sublime

>>14768011
based retard

>>14766614
Still not sure how to feel about Jesuit Casuistry, but I think this is a case where it is badly employed.

>>14767840
based is a vague term that doesn't mean anything desu

>>14768063
no, its a real virtue, just like beauty or truth.

>>14768059
you are a cringe retard if you disagree. you only accept a particular philosophical system or set of beliefs because they appeal to your sense of aesthetics. aesthetics is more basic than logic. deal with it.

>>14768070
i only ever see based used in political contexts

>>14766547
Lol didn't expect to see the based Frost brothers in /lit/. Thank you for brightening my day.

>>14766547
Aesthetics needs a metaphysics numbnuts

>>14768073
I accept my particular system because I first analyzed what is first given to me (experience) and then used what was at the end of this analysis to build my metaphysical system. It wasn't aesthetic at all, but very dry, technical and logical. Only after I was well into metaphysics aesthetics came into play.

>>14768096
an aesthetic response is something totally immediate. even babies have them. this is why they're able to refuse to eat certain foods, but enjoy others. now it of course requires some knowledge and intelligence that babies lack in order to have and to articulate aesthetic judgments on philosophical matters. but the only reason you accept your mode of philosophical analysis is because it appeals to you on an aesthetic level. other modes leave you with a negative response, or a less pleasing one. it is certainly true that gaining further philosophical knowledge also further conditions your aesthetic responses, but the only way you came to that knowledge in the first place is through your aesthetic preferences.

>>14768133
But it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically at all. It's very logical and methodical. When I look at my analysis and synthesis it doesn't invoke in me any feeling of beauty like when I for example look at a tree or a flower. Rather, it appeals to my logic and intuition just like math.

>>14766614
>My my, that is an AESTHETIC lump; hope that isn't malignant

>>14766547
based

>>14766547
>>14766564
>>14766609
>>14766614
>>14766706
>>14766769
>>14766782
>>14766788
>>14767379
>>14767432
>>14767435
>>14767760
>>14767783
>>14767803
>>14767823
>>14767840
BUT DON'T YOU SEE YOU'RE USING DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS?!!

WHAT IS THEOLOGY? ARE YOU GOING TO USE HEIDEGGER'S DEFINITION OR A MORE TRADITIONAL ONE?...!

Boy am I cosy.

>>14768144
logic is not a faculty that can be appealed to; it is a set of rules for deciding whether or not a statement is valid. but the only reason you care about logical validity, indeed the only condition for the existence of logic as an enterprise, is an aesthetic one. we could also analyze things in non-logical ways, but logic has an immediate appeal to us, an aesthetic one.

intuition is also an aesthetic response. the only way you can recognize something as intuitive is through your senses, and this sensation that you have when you recognize something as intuitive is a positive one, IE an aesthetically pleasing one. thus you pursue this intuition further and uncover its aesthetically appealing logical consequences.

>>14768184
I can see what you mean. So when I see a well formulated mathematical equation (as simple as, say, 1=1) I find it aesthetically pleasing. But if I see 2=3 it displeases. Therefore any search for truth entails aesthetic judgments?

But I think we should differentiate between different forms of aesthetic judgments then. When I read poetry, I find it beautiful, doesn't mean I believe it's true. When I read Leibniz, I think his general system is beautiful, but again I don't think it's true at all, just beautiful.

Again, I might see a rather difficult and counter intuitive mathematical equation which makes me really annoyed, but if check it step by step I find it's logically valid. Does that mean I appeal to aesthetic judgment, even though the equation is decidedly ugly?

All of this considered, I think the search for truth *can be* aesthetically pleasing, but nut *necessarily*. I might accept truths that I find horrible, but nevertheless true.

>>14766547
Aesthetics is logical.
Checkmate.

>>14768086
I see it used in all kinds of contexts

>>14768259
based

>>14766547
Ethics=Metaphysics>>>>>>>>>Aesthetics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Epistemology>>>>>>>>>>>Logic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Politics

>14766564
>duuurrr stem is plebian because it requires actual knowledge that i can't bullshit with low effort hipster shitposting
poetry

>>14768259
Based

>>14768063
>>14768086
>he doesn't intrinsically understand basic gestalts of the contemporary zeitgeist because he is an NPC who needs explicit definitions
kek

>>14766547
Maninterpt >>> everything else

>>14767760
most people get into politics before any of that. That's why we have so many retarded people who have no idea what they're talking about or why they support certain positions