/lit/ - Literature

>>16947032
No he wouldn't, because anime isn't art, it's an entertainment consumer product which is why 98% of it is pure, distilled garbage.
>t. weaboo retard

>>16947129
Most manga is art, some anime is art. But anybody who disregards all anime for some half-assed reason is just xenophobic or self-conscious. It's too broad to paint with one brush. It's the same as people who are like, "lol fuck reading thats for nerds books are gay"

>>16947032
>art is and serves the purpose of escapism for Schopenhauer
NO YOU FUCKING BRAINLET HOW DO YOU MISUNDERSTAND HIM THIS BADLY. IN SUPREME BEAUTY, THE WILL IS NEGATED-- IN SO-CALLED MODERN ART AND ANIME IT IS RATHER THAT THE WILL IS EXCITED.

>>16947032
Anime is a... kind of art. Mass produced, with the consumer in mind. Why don't you go to a big museum once the Corona blows over, with either historical or modern art and see what moves you? It's much better to see art in person, so you get the full effect.

>>16947189
Prove it

>>16947173
What are you on about? Most manga is also just entertainment consumer products. Hardly qualifies as "art".

Where do I start with Hegel!?

>>16947257
POWDERED MILK

>>16947236
Idk, usually they are made by one person. Drawing an entertaining and coherent story seems like a big task requiring a lot of passion.

>>16947291
Yes, that's true, but not every entertaining and coherent story is "art". Not to say that most manga have entertaining and coherent stories, either.

>>16947173

Anime and manga are outlets of sexual escapism and nothing more. Anything else included is accessory to that central role. Even """good""" anime like Eva imitates the same artstyle which is sexually evocative and the standard in the industry.

>>16947333

i.e. anime is demiurgic coomer madness. Much like everything else is capitalistic society, an expression of the base instinct to consume and reproduce and nothing else

>>16947129
Art is entertainment.

>>16947320
Well yeah, there will always be shit. In the end only the best stuff will be remembered for decades to come, like anything else. Do you know how many shitty forgettable novels were published in the eras that most of the classics come from? At any rate, is not every good sonata art either? If I enjoyed something emotionally, and a person put in a lot of intentional work so I could experience that emotion, that is the basis of art in my opinion.

>>16947358
>t. consoomer

>>16947373
>hurrr stop doing things you enjoy, even though society is structured around this
I don't understand why anyone would willingly adopt such a retardedly pessimistic and self-neutering philosophy.

>>16947370
Honestly anon, this is why some people didn't consider novels to be art, either - they were the trash medium of their era. It's only now that they've become more or less universally respectable. With all that said, yes, I would say that there is good anime which can be described as art. The base for comparison has been undermined in the first place - just look at YA garbage etc.
>If I enjoyed something emotionally, and a person put in a lot of intentional work so I could experience that emotion, that is the basis of art in my opinion.
It's understandable how you'd come to this conclusion, but that's a pretty basic take, imo. Almost no one of note in previous times would have agreed with you. Emotions aren't good in and of themselves.

>>16947400
>hurrr stop doing things you enjoy, even though society is structured around this
The same can be said to apply to opioids and the American opioid epidemic. Draw your own conclusions.
>I don't understand why anyone would willingly adopt such a retardedly pessimistic and self-neutering philosophy.
I'm not telling you to "stop doing things you enjoy". I am simply informing you that your Marvel engineered capeshit consoomer trash is not art. It will never be art. It's soulless garbage created specifically and exclusively for raking in the cash of hylic normies. Is it enjoyable? Maybe. Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. It's still not art.

>>16947032
hilarious how hegel got completely exposed before the end of his career and died in disgrace from cholera while Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age and got to witness the beginning of an everlasting fame

hegel's legacy is marx, collectivism, despotism and state sponsored genocide. Schopnenhauer's legacy is Nietzsche, individualism, aristocracy and the last vestiges of artistic genius

>>16947425
>The same can be said to apply to opioids and the American opioid epidemic
Only if you disingenuously stretch the meaning of what I was saying or misunderstand me like a retard.

>I'm not telling you to "stop doing things you enjoy".
But you are, and your pathetic strawman doesn't change that. It's not an argument either. Art is related to beauty which ultimately creates pleasure; calling art entertainment doesn't mean advocating for its dissolution into a cheap opioid.

>>16947464
>Only if you disingenuously stretch the meaning of what I was saying or misunderstand me like a retard.
Literally nothing you said disqualifies my interpretation of your words. Substitute "things you enjoy" for opioids and voila, there it is - my entire point.
>>16947464
>But you are, and your pathetic strawman doesn't change that. It's not an argument either.
I am not, because I don't care what you do. I would, however, appreciate it if you didn't confuse other people on the meaning of words.
>Art is related to beauty which ultimately creates pleasure;
Correct. However, the value of art does not necessarily stem from either of those.
>calling art entertainment doesn't mean advocating for its dissolution into a cheap opioid.
It kind of does, since you're legitimising the idea that trashy modern consumer culture produces "art", when it's actual products are anything but.

>>16947405
Indeed that is just the thought that just conjured in my brain as I sit here. I've never read any deep analysis of what art really is. But I'm certain there are things within the medium that could convince even the harshest critics, where they could at least admit that there is some merit there. Most of it really is YA-tier though, and it seems like the short era of making "artistic, literary" or rather thematically heavy anime is long over. Now its all about telling a straightforward story that is guaranteed to sell. It's the nature of the beast since anime is so expensive to make.

>>16947501
>Substitute "things you enjoy" for opioids and voila, there it is - my entire point.
No one thinks of opioids in relation to consumerism. When I wrote "things you enjoy" clearly opioids weren't even in consideration. Regardless, art is still entertainment — it entertains rather than disgusts. You have yet to argue this point.

>However, the value of art does not necessarily stem from either of those.
Then where does it stem from?

>>16947257
You know Hegel wasn't actually a gay anime gurl, right?

>>16947434
based

>>16947504
That's the time we live in. Don't get me wrong - as I said in my first reply, I am a weeb myself. I recently watched the new season of Re:Zero and other assorted garbage - I loved it. In fact, when it comes to anime I have really bad taste and I'm yet to really engage with the good stuff. Nevertheless, I am sure that there's stuff with artistic value in the medium.
>>16947539
>No one thinks of opioids in relation to consumerism. When I wrote "things you enjoy" clearly opioids weren't even in consideration.
You provided a principle according to which consumerism is okay, which is why I gave opioids as an example debunking your principle. Obviously, opioids have nothing to do with consumerism.
>Regardless, art is still entertainment — it entertains rather than disgusts. You have yet to argue this point.
You are really insulting my intelligence if you think I'm stupid enough to fall for a false dichotomy. Does art necessarily have to entertain or disgust? Is there no other possible option? We're not dealing with a simple case of antithesis here, anon. It's possible to write art that is great and also disgusting, just as it is to make art that is great and profoundly non-entertaining or to make art that is great and absolutely hilarious. This does not make art entertainment. Art can entertain, but it is not entertainment.

>>16947600
>Does art necessarily have to entertain or disgust?
It necessarily entertains. If you think it can disgust, you don't know what art is, or you're peddling a scam to support your bullshit behind closed doors. Even art that is designed to shock an audience doesn't truly disgust, because art is creative, and that creativity shines through the shock, coloring it with awe, and awe is entertaining. Something that truly disgusts, with nothing entertaining about it, can't be art, regardless if it was made by a human and placed in a museum for display, and it is never regarded as art by anyone who is genuine in their enthusiasm for art. Thus, art is entertainment.

>>16947032
brainlet. the art he was talking about produces an aesthetic state that allows you to experience higher realities. anime is just vulgar mass produced trash that fries your brain.

>>16947620
>It necessarily entertains.
What's entertaining about a crucifix in a jar of piss? What about those nonsense postmodern novels that are genuinely unreadable? What about novels that are profoundly depressing or vile? De Sade's novels for example? Or "All Quiet on the Western Front?" Or Dostoyevsky's "Demons", which had some of its chapters hacked off and banned in the USA for their "depravity". Is that "entertainment"? In the same sense that your Marvel consoomer capeshit is entertainment? Ha.
>If you think it can disgust, you don't know what art is, or you're peddling a scam to support your bullshit behind closed doors.
Seethe more you fucking jester, you know nothing about art.
>Even art that is designed to shock an audience doesn't truly disgust, because art is creative, and that creativity shines through the shock, coloring it with awe, and awe is entertaining.
Magically, through the power of cope, shock, awe and creativity have all been reduced to mere entertainment.
>Something that truly disgusts, with nothing entertaining about it, can't be art, regardless if it was made by a human and placed in a museum for display, and it is never regarded as art by anyone who is genuine in their enthusiasm for art. Thus, art is entertainment.
A languished and sorry excuse for an "argument".

>>16947650
not him but schopenhauer wouldn't consider modernist and postmodernist art as art.

>>16947650
>What's entertaining about a crucifix in a jar of piss? What about those nonsense postmodern novels that are genuinely unreadable?
To me? Nothing, and I don't call them art for that reason. And anyone genuinely interested in art who finds nothing entertaining about them shouldn't be calling them art either.

>What about novels that are profoundly depressing or vile?
Depends. Depressing and vile can still be entertaining. But if there's nothing entertaining in them, then they aren't art.

>Seethe more you fucking jester, you know nothing about art.
Sounds like I hit a nerve, but I won't judge anything other than your arguments.

>Magically, through the power of cope, shock, awe and creativity have all been reduced to mere entertainment.
"Magically"? This is pure empirical knowledge being bestowed upon you, and you're the one reducing these things to "mere entertainment," because to me entertainment isn't on a lower level of value. Why the fuck would it be? That's like placing myself on a lower level of value in this world.

>A languished and sorry excuse for an "argument"
So argue it. But you can't, so you'll just cry some more.

>>16947620
>It necessarily entertains.
Let's assume that it's necessary for art to entertain. How does it follow that it is also sufficient for art to entertain? Is there no higher purpose to art? How would you argue against people like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Jung and others who thought art had higher dimensions?

>>16947663
There are other examples I could point to, these were just closest to mind - though I tried to keep a balanced view of things by mentioning Dostoyevsky, for example.
>>16947690
Smug cope: the post. You keep repeating the same rhetorical bullshit but there's no substance. It's not even good rhetoric. Your entire terminology basically dissolved into total incoherence a couple of posts ago, so now you lump everything - consoomer entertainment garbage, shock art, disgusting art, beautiful art etc. etc. - under the same category of "entertainment" or in other words you've given up on your argument already. The rest is just you acting proud because you got me to give up in rebutting your revoltingly braindead takes point-by-point, as if that's some sort of great victory. You can have that if you'd like.
>"Magically"? This is pure empirical knowledge being bestowed upon you, and you're the one reducing these things to "mere entertainment," because to me entertainment isn't on a lower level of value. Why the fuck would it be? That's like placing myself on a lower level of value in this world.
1. Yes, magically.
2. No, this isn't "pure empirical knowledge", by definition. Literally none of these words are applicable.
3. It's "mere entertainment" because you're not a child anymore you fucking moron. If you need a feelsgood funny enjoyable whacky stimulating colourful bullshit product to keep your nonexistent attention span concentrated for more than five seconds, then you don't really have any "lower level" to descend to, anyway.

>>16947728
>How does it follow that it is also sufficient for art to entertain?
It doesn't, and I didn't say that. I was responding to the first post which claimed that something isn't art because it's a product made for entertainment and consumption, both which are inseparable functions of art.

>>16947129
>98% of it is pure, distilled garbage
90% of all art is pure, distilled garbage. Sturgeon's Law*
I think anime is at its best when it's dealing with simple plot lines without degenerate ecchi, yaoi, or yuri elements. Something like Sketchbook Full Colors is what I consider a good anime.

>>16947767
Well then, to say that "art is entertainment" is a bit misleading since it makes it sounds like entertainment is sufficient for art. Besides, based on experience the vast majority of commercialized "art", though entertaining, doesn't seem to have what makes art more than entertainment. More often than not they are carefully curated to maximize profit, not to evoke an aesthetic state.

>>16947752
>You keep repeating the same rhetorical bullshit but there's no substance. It's not even good rhetoric.
You want to talk about cope? This is cope. You can't follow my argument, so now you'll tell me that I don't have one. What a joke.

>you lump everything - consoomer entertainment garbage, shock art, disgusting art, beautiful art etc. etc. - under the same category of "entertainment"
No, my point was that, in art, entertainment NECESSARILY accompanies these things. No one genuinely spends time with something that genuinely disgusts them, and with art this point is even more profoundly relevant, since art captures our attention in a more sincere and powerful way than anything else.

>If you need a feelsgood funny enjoyable whacky stimulating colourful bullshit product to keep your nonexistent attention span concentrated for more than five seconds, then you don't really have any "lower level" to descend to, anyway.
I'm not defending anime, retard. I never even said anything about anime. You keep getting shit wrong about my argument because you keep fighting a strawman.

>>16947814
>No one genuinely spends time with something that genuinely disgusts them,
Not him, but I do for artistic reasons. Art can serve as a vehicle for more than just entertainment.

>>16947796
>0% of all art is pure, distilled garbage. Sturgeon's Law*
Fair enough, though I am not sure how much of it would still be called "art".
>
I think anime is at its best when it's dealing with simple plot lines without degenerate ecchi, yaoi, or yuri elements. Something like Sketchbook Full Colors is what I consider a good anime.
Uhhh based? Never seen the show, though.
>>16947814
>You want to talk about cope? This is cope. You can't follow my argument, so now you'll tell me that I don't have one. What a joke.
You literally don't - just take a look at the bullshit you say here for example: >>16947767
On the one hand you say entertainment isn't in itself sufficient to qualify something as art and at the same time you declare art to be - by its very nature - entertainment and even more hilariously, a consumer product. If you can't see the obvious contradiction here, you are literally tremendously retarded and nothing I can do can help you. Be grateful to this anon >>16947804 for being too nice to remark on how fucking dumb you are.
>No, my point was that, in art, entertainment NECESSARILY accompanies these things. No one genuinely spends time with something that genuinely disgusts them, and with art this point is even more profoundly relevant, since art captures our attention in a more sincere and powerful way than anything else.
And your point is wrong and unjustified. I don't know about you, but for my part I spend plenty of time purposely engaging with disgusting material - be it artistic or otherwise - for the purpose of familiarising myself with important things. That you can't even imagine someone engaging with something he finds disgusting simply demonstrates the immense narrowness of your mental horizons.
>I'm not defending anime, retard. I never even said anything about anime. You keep getting shit wrong about my argument because you keep fighting a strawman.
I am not talking about anime, anime is based - it is you who is cringe.

>>16947032
Just because you are prone to escapism does not mean that anything that is soothing, delighting, to one, entails escapism.

>>16947434
hegel's legacy is being the modern plato and schopenhauer's legacy is being the cranky incel philosopher that only internet retards care about, and thats because his work is practically non-philosophy - its super accessible to teenagers and they treat it like gold because it enables their larp of studying philosophy

>>16947804
>Well then, to say that "art is entertainment" is a bit misleading since it makes it sounds like entertainment is sufficient for art.
And "X isn't art because it's an entertainment consumer product" doesn't sound misleading to you? It implies that entertainment is sufficient for something to not be art. My post was in response to this; if anything the one to start this game of reductio ad absurdum was the poster I replied to.

>>16947824
>I do for artistic reasons
aka because you desire it, which means you're entertained rather than disgusted.

>Art can serve as a vehicle for more than just entertainment.
And yet it must always entertain as well. So to say that something isn't art because "it's an entertainment consumer product" is misguided.

>>16947864
>On the one hand you say entertainment isn't in itself sufficient to qualify something as art and at the same time you declare art to be - by its very nature - entertainment and even more hilariously, a consumer product.
Art is entertainment =/= art is merely entertainment.
Art must entertain =/= art must only entertain.
Art does more than entertain =/= art doesn't need to entertain.

>If you can't see the obvious contradiction here, you are literally tremendously retarded and nothing I can do can help you.
You're not seeing contradictions, you're creating them.

>I don't know about you, but for my part I spend plenty of time purposely engaging with disgusting material - be it artistic or otherwise - for the purpose of familiarising myself with important things.
See my point above to the other poster. You desire those things, or something about them, therefore they aren't solely disgusting to you, and there is something to them that must entertain you. It's not that I "can't imagine someone engaging with something he finds disgusting," but that your ability to observe is too weak to realize how desiring something that truly disgusts you is a psychological impossibility. And besides, your philosophy of art is trash — it permits everything undesirable into the realm of art, as if it is even possible to find beauty in everything without majorly deluding yourself as to what "everything" entails with heavy narcotics first.

>>16948481
>And "X isn't art because it's an entertainment consumer product" doesn't sound misleading to you? It implies that entertainment is sufficient for something to not be art.
I agree but also note that while entertainment is not a sufficient nor necessary condition for something to be not-art, it is also true that in general (not by necessity) entertainment consumer products are not art. In fact, there are very few counter examples, if any. I would suggest not minding the other poster though. Animefags have rotten brains.

>>16948376
I hope this post was meant to be ironic.

>>16947227
Read Schopes.

but
>So long as we have to fulfil the work of the Will, that Will which is ourselves, there in truth is nothing for us but the spirit of Negation, the spirit of our own will that, blind and hungering, can only plainly see itself in its un-will toward whatsoever crosses it as obstacle or disappointment. Yet that which crosses it, is but itself again; so that its rage expresses nothing save its self-negation: and this self-knowledge can be gained at last by Pity born of suffering—which, cancelling the Will, [245] expresses the negation of a negative; and that, by every rule of logic, amounts to Affirmation.

>>16947425
>American opioid epidemic.
Eurofag in denial or?

>>16947434
Show me ONE thing Schopenhauer did better than Hegel, other than appeal to the human heart (which is no doubt a great something in itself).

>>16947129
And yet it's superior to any "Art" that's coming out of the west in this century. All art is a consumer product, you twit. There are manga that absolutely shit on most of what /lit/ sucks off.

>>16947129
based. i have only ever seen midwits post that shit. its facile.

>>16948577
Better philosophical prose is the obvious. Fucking Nietzsche used to copy and imitate his prose when he was starting. Other than that, his metaphysics, far from being empty concept-peddling, was actually relevant to our actual knowledge of the world, as is shown by how scientists from Darwin to Freud to Einstein praised him.

>>16947032
Schopenhauer would be the biggest weeb ever. Probably the biggest connoisseur of hentai or even an artist if he was born today.

>>16947373
>t, dumb enough to think any artist or writer doesn't work for shekels

>>16947638
>the art he was talking about produces an aesthetic state that allows you to experience higher realities.
I can think of many anime that do that better than most any painting literature Anime by default portrays a higher reality

>>16947892
That's dumb.

>>16948627
So it's true that animefags have rotten brains. You need to go back.

>>16947804
>More often than not they are carefully curated to maximize profit
This has always been the case. But there are always those who want to create something they're passionate about and that's what's remembered. No artist works for free but regardless of motivations, any work that invokes a strong emotion in you can be considered art.

>>16948639
t, narrowminded pleb

>>16947346
I think you're confusing anime for Hentai there buddy. How do anime like Mushishi or Sangatsu no lion or Akagi fit into this definition? The typical artstyle isn't "sexually evocative" as much as it's just good looking though there are many exceptions. Sexuality isn't exclusive to art either. Some of the greatest artists and writers were pervs who used their art as a release for pent up frustration.

>>16948600
>Other than that, his metaphysics, far from being empty concept-peddling, was actually relevant to our actual knowledge of the world, as is shown by how scientists from Darwin to Freud to Einstein praised him.
Hegel's metaphysics was ultimately more important. Schopenhauer is very good, but he doesn't get much further than he already is, Hegel leads on to the millions. Just look at the effect he had in our understanding of language, in figures such as Heidegger.

>>16948740
Hegel's metaphysics is ultimately empty concept-peddling, same as Heidegger's. Read Carnap. That Schopenhauer's metaphysical theory inspired actual scientific discoveries goes to show he wasn't just peddling concepts, he was unto something. Hegel doesn't lead anywhere except maybe intersectional and queer theory where contradictions make sense.

>>16948765
>Analytics
Somehow I get the idea that you don't actually understand Hegel, if you're just calling him "empty concept-peddling". Same for Heidegger. Calling Hegel that is understandable, but Heidegger? Absolutely you don't know much about him. I agree that Hegel led to a lot of empty concept building, especially those after him who tried to completely join Hegelianism and Christianity.

Schopenhauer seems to me to ultimately fall into a blindness as to the historical nature of that which he talks. The concepts he used to talk about art are thoroughly situated in his current period, but he projects them over all of history.

>>16947173
>>16947236

Art is work that wants to transmit a message
When lots of people or "rules" get involved (vidya, movies or anime) sometimes the message disappears or is weakened, and it is only then that a work stops being art

>>16947032
Would Schopenhauer play video games if he were alive today?

>>16948822
Carnap has a particularly beautiful paper "Overcoming Metaphysics" on the kind of metaphysics Hegel and Heidegger tend to do. I highly recommend you read that as soon as possible, as well as Quine's "On What There Is". You have already allegedly read Hegel and Heidegger, and these papers are short. You have nothing to lose.
>Schopenhauer seems to me to ultimately fall into a blindness as to the historical nature of that which he talks.
Quite the opposite. Schopenhauer expresses Truths that are eternal and therefore is immune to this historicism. That is why Hegel is already useless to study but as long as people find value in Plato and the metaphysicians of the East, they will also find value in Schopenhauer.

>>16948873
Without a doubt.
He'd be bullied by the TVRKISH BVLL in school.
In all likelyhood he'd probably be worse than he was in his day.

>it's another "/lit/ tries to talk about anime" thread

>>16948874
I will read Quine, I'm not going to be arrogant. But I have to ask, what do you think about Heidegger's response to metaphysics?

>Hegel's metaphysics doesn't express eternal truths
You said this statement with such cunning and disingenuous contrast to Schopenhauer, that I cannot take it serious in the slightest. "Schopenhauer was right, Hegel is completely wrong" is what your sentence amounts to here.

And as long as people find a value in Plato and history, they should also find a value in Hegel.

>>16949084
Uncultured swine I swear.

>>16947032

Damn now I want an harem anime about a young philosophy transfer student having to seduce his classmates, but plot twist, they are all philosophers.

> Schopenhauer the depressive and always tired looking neet girl who hates herself for being a weak woman.
> Husserl the ever-writing super intelligent overachiever who gets all her hard work stolen from her by her best friend Heddie.
> Sartre the haegao slut girl.
> Camus the cool loli.

>>16949106
If I'm to be honest, I'm finding your comment a bit funny. We are on an image board and specifically in an anime thread. It's a matter of course that I won't be able to dismantle a philosopher's whole corpus in a single 4chan post. I have, nevertheless, referenced a paper that backs up my view. In short, metaphysicians such as Heidegger and Hegel are operating purely on a conceptual framework which, despite the seducing appearance, has no relevance to the world at all. Or as I said more succinctly, it is mere concept-peddling. The arguments for this are written down in Carnap's paper. Note that Carnap was no arrogant analytic in the vain of Russell. He had a background in Husserl's work and broadly speaking with similar sympathies. As a result the paper actually engages with their work, it's not just a strawman typical of analytics.

>>16948376
congrats lad, you've won worst post of the week. I hope you're proud

reported for buzzwords and shitposting

>>16948577
literally everything. the only thing hegel did better was hollow jargon-mongering and sucking off the prussian state. hegel's metaphysics are a morass. Schopenhauer is Kant's only legitimate heir and the only philosopher who carried Kantian metaphysics forward by removing all the superfluous categories of the understanding and simplifying Kant's schema

>>16947032
I don't think he supported any physical depictions of women in art.

>>16949188
I don't ask that you explain Heidegger's entire philosophy anon, but I meant in the way that you referenced Carnap's response to metaphysics and I was wondering how that was similar to Heidegger's, or what you thought of Heidegger's in general. The least you can say in response, is "his critique of metaphysics has no relevance to reality," whereas you obviously believe Carnap's does.

And being honest, I'm not trying to catch and string up that you're talking about Heidegger while knowing almost nothing about him, though I may say you should go read more about him if you aren't that familiar with him, I'm just hoping that you do know enough about him to contrast him with Carnap, and see where there is a value or none, for me or for you.

I also think it's a bit pompous to say his philosophy has no relevance to reality at all, and treat it traditionally as one would with any great philosophers magnitude of a corpus. I understand you will say, "but it is still an enormously difficult corpus to explain, even if it is almost all falsity," but that does not convince me that it has no "relevancy" to the world at all.

I also wonder, what do you think of what is commonly called the existentialism in Heidegger such as his 'being-towards-death', where he was at least partly inspired by the East, and takes meaning as affirmed through realisation of death, and ones own temporality? Ignoring specifics that Heidegger would say Philosophy is only Wester, is that not a turning to the East? Considerably further on the geographical scale than Schopenhauer, where one Westerner makes use of that which is new from the East for the West, and again another. Meaningfully realising the value of East, in ones own original philosophic inclinations, and of course much more on home ground.

>>16949504
Based

>>16947129
lmfao you're fucking stupid and probably under 18

>>16950048
Coping weab. How could anyone think 99% of anime has any value in the slightest?

>>16949547
>>16949188
Feuerbach destroyed Hegel by showing that the truth of his absolute idealism is in fact naturalistic materialism, thus he directly connected science with philosophy and made further theology unnecessary.
As he destroyed Hegel from Hegelian position there is absolutely no need for Schopy or Nietzsche, or any of their further spawns of evil such as the post structural philosophy

>>16947032
Almost no art is being produced today. Anime is just porn and violence porn.

>>16950303
Feuerbach is interesting, but he doesn't rank among people like Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Wagner gave up any interest in Feuerbach as soon as he read Schopenhaeur.

any lit about dykes cucking eachother

>>16950325
I agree; I would say he ranks higher

What is it about anime posters that just exhudes this attitude of posturing? Every time I see an anime picture next to text here the words are always the most self indulgent midwit trite. I would really appreciate someone helping me place my finger on it, since it seems to stem from some uniquely modern form of juvenile narcissism. As if the posts themselves being here justify you in your vapid little world of appearences and asethetic looking actions (despite the fact nobody gives a fuck or is watching) as an intellectual or "thinker" (again, despite the fact most people on this board are redditors like you who want to add "posts on a literature board" to a list of activites you ideally see yourself as doing). The content always has the same facile feeling as a teenagers blog, the concepts are pseudo deep and overly drawn out to create the impression of ponderance and depth, and then of course the superficial orientalism of a fucking cartoon that you hope lends the text (and your life also) some sort of offbeat aesthetic/ edgy self expression. Lets not even get into the fact that anime itself is the ultimate midwit medium, a visual style created to appeal to children dressed up in faux- thoughtful adolescent themes and usually having to compensate for its intellectual and spiritual immaturity with extreme depcitions of violence or rape, much like some 14 year olds harry potter fanfiction to show it is "serious and for adults". Like with anime, there is no subtlety, no new or engaging ideas, just self indulgent, vapid imagery hoping to give the impression of substance. The exact same shit all your posts are. I have no issue with people enjoying things for children, I play sonic games for fucks sake. But dressing it up, or more accurately using it to dress yourself up, and your shitty posts, is fucking pathetic. Grow up.

>>16950990
what is this SHOW

>>16951123
There's plenty of good and intellectually stimulating anime, anon. Why just the other day I enjoying an episode the 1978 adaptation of Treasure Island over a cup of tea, allowing the genius of its direction to wash over me. You should try it some time.

>>16947032
kill yourself

>>16951241
And what if he did, huh!?

>>16947032
There is no such thing as "art" in post-modern society. Thus, nothing is art and everything is art. You can watch anime if you want, it doesn't matter. Art is an archaic concept of a world that hadn't been completely overtaken by the capitalist machine.

>>16951310
Jesus Christ nobody ever took the philosophical criteria of artwork seriously. it's art if society says its art.

>>16947600
>I'm yet to really engage with the good stuff

It's hard to say whether much of it is really 'good', but there was this period around 1995-2005 where a lot of studios were attempting to make deeper, more thematic anime. This was all set off due to the massive success of Evangelion. But soon they realized that EVA's popularity was a fluke and that anime with complex, thought provoking themes don't sell.

>>16951310
how embarrassing

>>16951340
I feel like a lot of the works more obviously influenced by eva only had a very shallow level of intellectual depth. A work can be related to complex ideas without directly engaging or discussing them.

>>16947434
>Schopnenhauer's legacy is Nietzsche
shut the fuck up retard
pic related is the philosophical legacy of Schopenhauer.

>>16951380
Pessimism is the most superficial aspect of Schopenhauer though. His legacy is Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Schrödinger, Pauli and Wittgenstein.

>>16948376
>hegel's legacy is being the modern plato
Don't disgrace the name of Plato putting him in the same level as this obscurantist bullshitter.

>>16948481
>And "X isn't art because it's an entertainment consumer product" doesn't sound misleading to you?
Bruh moment. You're an actual retard. Genuinely can not even begin to describe how retarded you are.
>It implies that entertainment is sufficient for something to not be art.
No it doesn't. Again, you're retarded.
>if anything the one to start this game of reductio ad absurdum was the poster I replied to.
There is no absurdity to reduce you to since you're already there.
>aka because you desire it, which means you're entertained rather than disgusted.
I refer to what I said earlier about you raping the meaning of words. 0 IQ. Unironically the dumbest pos I've spoken to in the past year.
>And yet it must always entertain as well. So to say that something isn't art because "it's an entertainment consumer product" is misguided.
No.
>muh inequality sign meme
Art is art, it isn't "entertainment" you colossal fucking moron. It can entertain, but it is not entertainment, it doesn't have to entertain and it can be deliberately boring if its creator so chooses. Read a book on logic then reread our conversation. Dear god.
>You're not seeing contradictions, you're creating them.
No anon, you're creating them since you're the one writing this garbage. I am merely commenting on them.
>You desire those things, or something about them, therefore they aren't solely disgusting to you, and there is something to them that must entertain you.
Pure incoherence. Think hard on why this is stupid.
>realize how desiring something that truly disgusts you is a psychological impossibility
I told you your horizons are too narrow earlier precisely because you project your stupid idea of "desire" onto others. I don't desire to engage with things I find disgusting, I choose to because sometimes they are relevant and I need to have an opinion on them. This is just one criticism - you're in fact totally incoherent.
>And besides, your philosophy of art is trash
OK mister "art is an entertainment consumer product".
>>16948575
Google "opioid epidemic". Maybe Google the Sacklers too.

>>16948577
>ONE thing Schopenhauer did better than Hegel

He wrote clearly and sometimes beautifully

>>16951539
Art should make people feel happy :)

>>16948583
>And yet it's superior to any "Art" that's coming out of the west in this century.
Reasonable if debatable point.
>All art is a consumer product, you twit.
100% pure retard.
>There are manga that absolutely shit on most of what /lit/ sucks off.
Yes.
>>16948612
Okay anon, imagine the following. You have two people. One of them spends a decade working on his artistic piece and eventually publishes it. He's discovered by people with taste who shill for him, he becomes famous because of his art and ends up rich. The other one is a CEO exec at a major entertainment company. He consults his market experts on what sells, then engineers an entertainment product (marvel capeshit, isekai shit etc all fall under this category) for the sole purpose of monetising it. Which one is art? Which one is a consumer product? Is there a difference between the two?
>>16948855
Your first sentence is okay, but there's no justification for that "only" part. Lots of trash fiction has no message - it's just "entertainment for entertainment's sake". Capeshit, isekai etc. all fall under that category, alongside the early novels penned by w*men.
>>16949084
Stop arousing me.
>>16950048
Miss and a miss. Sad!
>>16951340
Mildly depressing desu.

>>16951613
No lol, but good bait.

>>16947032
Yes. Art is glorified escapism and all aesthetics is just a way of justifying what you like and sometimes justifying what you don't like. "Art" is nothing but a dopamine-machine.

>>16947032
This was a grave mistake by Schoppy. He didn’t question his assumptions about what art was. In 19th century Europe you could say that art was great, without clearly defining what art because everyone assumed that what they were seeing and hearing was what art was. But he didn’t foresee that the concept of art would change dramatically. What passes for “art” now goes from cheap consumer goods to post-modern gayshit. Yet people don’t grasp that the word is the same but the referent has changed completely, and they mistakenly assume that what Schopenhauer was talking about applies to what they call “art”. “Woah Schopenhauer was talking about anime bro!”. He wasn’t.

>>16951639
He defines art and gives criteria for what is a good and bad art. Maybe actually try to read him.

>>16947032
More like Copenhauer and Gaygel

>>16950990
ANSWER ME

>>16952323
Have you tried to image search it, anon?

>>16952361
obviously

>>16952323
Hitori Bocchi no Marumaru Seikatsu

>>16952374
based, thank you

>>16949066
Schopenhauer threw people down the stairs, he wouldn't take shit from any immigrant trash

>>16951539
>not a single argument to be found anywhere
>"pure incoherence" aka I'm too dumb to understand psychology 101
Pathetic.

>>16952604
Literally the next line I debunk some of your bullshit, since you're incoherent and can only ever repeat yourself. The fact remains that your entire statement was totally incoherent and I should no more be expected to address it than to address someone claiming that setting yourself on fire is actually a good thing or that wood is made out or iron or something else equally dumb.

>>16952790
>Literally the next line I debunk some of your bullshit
What, this line?

>I don't desire to engage with things I find disgusting, I choose to because sometimes they are relevant and I need to have an opinion on them.
We don't engage with beautiful things because we "need to have an opinion on them" lol. You're not even engaging with art here. Read Schiller.

>>16951431
>Pessimism is the most superficial aspect of Schopenhauer though
kek @ amount of coping and pseudness in this statement

>>16952842
>We don't engage with beautiful things because we "need to have an opinion on them" lol.
That's exactly why I said you have narrow intellectual horizons and rely on projecting those same horizons onto others. Who's "we"? That's exactly what I do, retard.

>>16951431
Extremely redpilled

>>16952919
>That's exactly what I do
It's not what you do. You're not engaging with a beautiful thing anymore if that's your goal. It's changed form into a "mysterious/unknown thing" that now piques your curiosity, or a "valuable thing" that now represents some form of gain for you. If I'm the one with the "narrow intellectual horizons" then how come you're the one reducing different things into a single, simpler one?

>>16953082
>"if I am engaging with a piece of art that I personally find disgusting and dislike, then it's not art anymore and everyone who claims otherwise must be wrong!"
Thanks for the insightful take, retard.

>>16953116
There's a name for that insight btw, it's called relativity. Look it up. You'll thank me later.

>>16953159
>art is an entertainment consumer product
>art is relative
>btw postmodern art also isn't art
You are something special, alright.

>>16948583
>All art is a consumer product
>he hasn't even read the postmarxists
Cringe illiterate spotted

Art is relative you fucking retards. And schopenhauer was a coping ugly incel

>>16953919
false and reported

>>16954938
Have sex incel

No because anime is really just masturbatory material made for bugmen chinks.

>>16947358
americans think this

>>16948481
>aka because you desire it,
Nope. I do it because I want to become stronger and understand the ratiocination underlying nihilistic or wrathful logic.
>which means you're entertained rather than disgusted.
I wasn't entertained by The House that Jack Built, Funny Games, or Maldoror. I don't really consider transgressive horror entertaining unlike bleak or cosmic stuff like Lovecraft or Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre.
>And yet it must always entertain as well.
Not really. One can immerse himself into art pieces for many different reasons is my point.