/lit/ - Literature

double rainbow...what does it meeeeean??

>>1755705
*congratulate your retarded

I don't think "subjectivism" exists, but whatever. It is a mistake to say "this is subjective" or "that is subjective" because saying this or that is subjective is objectifying.

Stop posting in this thread.

>>1755727
No.

>>1755705
Define 'anything else'.

lol your

Not sure if trolling with that, but you're kind of right about that being objective. Literature, music, and art have certain elements and qualities that make them good or not.

I'm not sure whether you're trolling, or if you really have such a weak grasp of the term "subjectivism."

>>1755745
Literature, etc. may have "qualities'' but as to which qualities make a work "good", there is no definite answer--there are trends, schools, "movements", fashions, etc. Aesthetics based on "objective" qualities will inevitably succumb to an enslavement to trends. Either that, or 3000 years of the same fucking thing as in Egypt.

>>1755745
agreed

like this board told me ulysses was supposed to be good and then i read it and there were absolutely no steampunk elements in it, which, uh? i mean where are the standards

>>1755748
lets hear what you understand by the term... "subjectivity".. loudmouthed pup

you are going down some kind of loop.

subjective taste/ideology/moral valence etc etc is not as thin as epistemological subject. the space of reasons are plural in the former case.

It isn't that people don't understand Art when they are saying it is "subjective'' it's that they don't understand subjectivity. Because subjectivity is obviously the meat of what makes art important, and objective qualities more like the bones.

>>1755783
>subjective taste/ideology/moral valence
now what is subjective about any of these here things

saved. thanks, D&E.

I'm a firm believer in deep&edgyisamassivecocksucker-ism.

Will you be my sensei? Teach me the art of troll-fu plz

d&e doesn't really troll, i think this is a legitimate thing to discuss, I mean I'm wasting my life on a literature board after all.

>>1755818
>d&e doesn't really troll

You are trolling with your own opinions that you actually believe, but you are putting in spelling mistakes and bad grammar as a safety net so you can always say you were trolling when someone proves you wrong.

>>1755825
He still things Varg is cool!

How come the first panel and the second set up a narrative but the third and fourth panel are hermetic? That's just a sloppy lack of continuity, D&E.
Also subjectivity isn't purely an epistemological point.

mine are better

>>1755866
See, this is what I'm talking about. There's a clear structure here for the rhetoric. It's obviously better because of this objective standard.

>>1755893
thanks i worked real hard

my next issue is going to be about feminism

>>1755893
I'd clarify why such an objective standard is not necessarily the appropriate standard for evaluation in this case but you'd probably turn around and be all like "herpaderp u'r just stating the obvious omg pedantic asshole"

don't fight you guys

>>1755906
dont suck up to koro just because he said your shitty comic is better

tell me about urself, deep&edgy

what do you do in yr life

>>1755908
god you're a hypocrite

and he's always been my friend !

>>1755705

Deep&Edgy, dumb 16 year old.

>thinks aesthetics and taste are objective

>this is what hipsters need to believe in order to give their life styles some semblance of importance.


>sage goes in all fields when posting in this thread

>>1755904
>I'd clarify why such an objective standard is not necessarily the appropriate standard for evaluation in this case
I would clarify that clarity of rhetoric is of supreme importance in any text. Form is of supreme importance in clarity.

Unless of course the values of objective standards are subjective, and that's where the true meaning of subjectivity lies.

>>1755913
>god you're a hypocrite
when do i ever suckup to people just because they're nice to me? in fact i think i remember you accusing me of the contrary, so much for consistency...

>>1755705

>non-sequitur
>science is objective, therefore my opinion on art is now objective.

>nope.

>>1755705

Ya man, apples are objectively more delicious than oranges..I mean if you don't think this an objective fact, you're a retard

>>1755922
>>1755922
>saved. thanks, D&E.
i know youre deluding yourself into thinking that your life is horrible and you need to reach out to pseudo-father figures online but don't be ridiculous

>>1755918
>Unless of course the values of objective standards are subjective, and that's where the true meaning of subjectivity lies.
So behemoth seeing as onionring and anon couldn't be bothered maybe you can lend a hand and tell me exactly what's meant by the term 'subjectivity'

>ITT People just flat out don't know what "subjectivity" is

>>1755915
>>1755925
>>1755932

Heh, mfw these dumbs noobs think I have said anything that has to do with objectivity

>>1755935
>exactly what's meant by subjectivity
>exactly what's meant
>exactly
I can't.

>>1755933
That has absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything I've said.

>>1755941
Okay let's make it a little easier; give me your conception of subjectivity

You should discuss this on Something Awful if you want some informed answers, 4chan is pretty low-brow.

>>1755918
>Unless of course the values of objective standards are subjective, and that's where the true meaning of subjectivity lies
You know this isn't half bad really Koro, a little deluded but on the right path nonetheless.

>>1755935

a judgment is subjective if its truth value is relative to a particular observer, and is subject to change depending on who is observing (i.e judgments regarding: art, music, food)

a judgment is objective if its truth value depends on facts measurable and observable by everyone, regardless of who is doing the observing (i.e measures of distance, measures of weight, measures of density, etc)

You can make objective statements about art, like: the play Hamlet exists..this doesn't change depending on who you ask.

You can make subjective statements about art, like: Hamlet is a piece of shit play...some may agree...depending on their private criteria, and preference..

>Standards-Objective
>Experiences-Subjective
>Trying to align your experiences with standards--results may vary
>prescriptively suggesting that experiences should only be defined by standards--self-deluding
>denying the possibility of experiences being defined by standards--self-absorbed

>>1755943
My conception of subjectivity?
A stance used to end an argument because the discussion of it can extend into infinite recursions.

>>1755942
my point is that youre all over d+e and youre getting all pouty over something i said to koroviev


youre so dense sometimes

>>1755950

there is no such thing as objective criteria for quality

it changes depending on who you ask, for reasons peculiar to each individual...

just like you can't determine if apples are more delicious than oranges...it's an absurd question

quality is in the eye of the beholder

>>1755950
>a judgment is subjective if its truth value is relative to a particular observer, and is subject to change depending on who is observing
How is that subjective and not just relative

>a judgment is objective if its truth value depends on facts measurable and observable by everyone, regardless of who is doing the observing
But that's just saying something is objective if it's (blah blah blah) relative to "everyone" (which is btw impossible but let's not let that stop us for the purposes of debate)

so you have just given me two examples of relativity, nothing more

>>1755943
From a wiki article on one of Kierkegaard's works:

>Objective truth is that which relates to propositions, that which has no relation to the existence of the knower. History, science, and speculative philosophy all deal with objective knowledge. According to Climacus, all objective knowledge is subject to doubt. Focuses on what is asserted.

>Subjective truth is essential or ethico-religious truth. It is not composed of propositions or perceptions of the external world, but of introspection, experiences, and especially one's relationship with God.

And Nietzsche:

>In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.”
>It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against.[emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

Objectivity refers to statements about states of affairs. Subjectivity is about the subject's relationship with states of affairs: the form and content of his experiences and interpretations.
Philosophies like Existentialism and Taoism are focused on subjectivity.

>>1755965
>the form and content of his experiences and interpretations.
and "Will".

>>1755958
>just like you can't determine if apples are more delicious than oranges...it's an absurd question
No it's not. Some people have shittier taste buds and constitutions than others, some people have better olfaction capacities and culinary expertise. It would be absurd to think that someone with no capacity to taste through anosmia or whatever is capable of being an authority on whether oranges are more delicious than apples

>>1755965
>Objectivity refers to statements about states of affairs. Subjectivity is about the subject's relationship with states of affairs
There's absolutely no difference between the two, because statements about states of affairs necessarily imply a relationship with states of affairs.

D&E why are you so obsessed with Authority?

Objective is a standard.
Subjective is a perspective.
Both are relative.

>>1755977
>No it's not. Some people have shittier taste buds and constitutions than others, some people have better olfaction capacities and culinary expertise.
None of that means the orange is intrinsically delicious, it merely contributes to the point that different people perceive things differently, and so, as Protagoras famously said, man is the measure of all things.

>>1755978
I'm not obsessed, I just don't like seeing things go to shit through a lack of recognition of said authority

>>1755980
>Objective is a standard.
>Subjective is a perspective.
>Both are relative.
standards can be reduced to perspective, so all we have are perspectives which are relative

where is the subjectivity, or even the subject, in any of this

>>1755977
>There's absolutely no difference between the two, because statements about states of affairs necessarily imply a relationship with states of affairs.
>a relationship with states of affairs.

Yes, but with subjectivity it's essential to the subject.
Consider the statements:
"The cat sits on the mat"
and
"I'm having an existential crisis".
Surely there's an ontologcial difference between this too statements, and differ epistemologically too.

I think much of aesthetic philosophy focuses on the subject too.

>>1755985
>None of that means the orange is intrinsically delicious
no shit, I never said anything is intrinsically anything.

>it merely contributes to the point that different people perceive things differently
It contributes to the point that different people perceive things better or worse (and this has nothing to do with anything being intrinsic or not)

>Protagoras famously said, man is the measure of all things.
different men give different measures, and some are better than others

>>1755986
There are authorities, but you seem to believe that there authority is only derived from ability. You seem to appeal to authority quite often. Are you really German? that would be kind of funny.

>where is the subjectivity, or even the subject, in any of this
THIS. so fucking right. this discussion is shit, man, and you know it. why argue with people about subjectivity when they aren't even talking about it?

>>1755986
>standards can be reduced to perspective, so all we have are perspectives which are relative
>where is the subject
The subject is. The object is in relation to it.

>>1755991
Better than others at what? If they're not better than others at determining some hidden state, what does this vague statement "better than others" mean?

>I believe something is subjective.
>Therefore I believe everything is subjective.

>I believe I can't verifiably determine with any exactitude certain important quantities
>Therefore I will automatically refuse to accept qualifications.

Never change, D&E.

>>1755989
>with subjectivity it's essential to the subject.
what subject?


>"The cat sits on the mat"
and
"I'm having an existential crisis".
Surely there's an ontologcial difference between this too statements, and differ epistemologically too.
Sentence form is misleading you, because this
>"The cat sits on the mat"
can always be said to imply a subject;
>"(I think/assert/feel/etc that) the cat sits on the mat"
What's this called again, referential opacity?

>>1755995
>you seem to believe that there authority is only derived from ability
Gee why not leave it divine right, that worked out pretty well after all

>>1755997
>The subject is.
Now that's just circular
>The object is in relation to it.
In relation to what? What is this 'subject' you are talking about?

>>1756000
>Better than others at what?
At determining whether one thing is better than something else in a relational context

>>1756003
>I believe something is subjective.
>Therefore I believe everything is subjective.
Frankly if you believe anything is subjective you might as well believe everything is, it's so retarded.

kumquat > pineapple > clementine > orange > plum > apple

objectively

>>1756008
The phrase "everything is subjective" was, i think, originally meant to convey the idea that when you say "the cat sits on the mat" that the cat and the mat both have subjectivity, and wouldn't be neat to explore the subjectivity of the cat and the mat? In your comic, and in this thread, people confuse solipsism for "subjectivity" and bullshit ensues. also
>Gee why not leave it divine right, that worked out pretty well after all
Egyptian and Aztec societies were pretty great.

>>1756008
>can always be said to imply a subject;
Within very strict boundaries, yes, but in how you've stated it, no.

>At determining whether one thing is better than something else in a relational context
Everyone else is better than you at knowing they are better than you.

>>1755948
>SA
>not lowbrow

How do you determine whether someone is "better" at tasting an apple? Even assuming omniscience, I don't see what that would mean.

>>1756008
>Gee why not leave it divine right, that worked out pretty well after all

>>1756010
pineapple shouldn't even be in that list, you can't just bite into a pineapple.

>>1755977
>No it's not. Some people have shittier taste buds and constitutions than others, some people have better olfaction capacities and culinary expertise. It would be absurd to think that someone with no capacity to taste through anosmia or whatever is capable of being an authority on whether oranges are more delicious than apples

You missed the point entirely. The taste of the apple is a product of the measuring system itself (tongue) hence your measurements will always be circular and biased...

This tongue likes it, that one doesn't. Who is right? Neither.

There is no "objective" taste of an apple as experienced by an unbiased medium...
The apple expert can't approximate the "real" taste of an apple anymore than a pig can.

When someone tastes an apple he is simply experiencing a stimulus relative to his own biological and psychological conditioning...it isn't anymore accurate than a pig's experience of an apple because there is no such thing as the "objective true taste" of an apple...

That's the problem with all art. There is no such thing as "quality" anywhere in the universe to measure. It's all a construct of the individual.

Other things like distance between earth and the moon don't function like this. There is an actual distance, and there are methods of approximating it, some better than others...some to 100 decimal places, etc.

>>1755950
But how do we determine what is fact? How can we trust anything?

>>1756010
>clementine above orange
>banana not even on the list
ohshitniggerwhatareyoudoing.jpg

>The taste of the apple is a product of the measuring system itself (tongue) hence your measurements will always be circular and biased...

>This tongue likes it, that one doesn't. Who is right? Neither.

/thread

>>1756017

point taken but i wasn't really employing biteability as a criterion; it was more fruits as a whole eliding berries for simplicity's sake

then again i forgot the banana which of course would have a very high ranking, it's a flawed precis

>>1756008
>In relation to what? What is this 'subject' you are talking about?
>The subject is.
>Now that's just circular

Yes, now you get what I mean.

>>1756031
Yes you should feel bad

>>1755959
This is the first time in this thread that I have wholeheartedly agreed with a post. I finally see your point, d&e.

>>1755977
It's all based on perception, anyway.

ITT:
"Subjectivity" gets confused for the idea that "everything is relative" and i get mad

>>1755950
Not that guy, but moreover, you can make much more complex statements objectively about art. For example: Most people find the poetic language in Hamlet moving (assuming you had measured this using a repeatable measure), or generally speaking (p<.05), people with doctorates in English Literature regard Shakespeare as among the best authors in the English Language.
It's not merely that quality in literature or cuisine have no measurable effect. This may not even be the case. It's that the terms "quality" "literature" and "cuisine" are too abstract to be used together without creating a conditional definition of one or more of those terms which is valueless outside of the context in which it is generated.

>>1755995
>why argue about...

Thank you!

(Subjective) Quality, in art is a function of the individual perceiving it. The human imposes quality unconsciously, he doesn't detect it.

(Objective) Quantity, in science is a function of nature and it is measured by some instrument outside the individual. It is approximated, not imposed.

>>1756010
Yeah, fuck apples!

>>1756014
>How do you determine whether someone is "better" at tasting an apple?
The same way you determine someone is "better" at you than chess if he wipes the floor with you twenty times in a row

>The taste of the apple is a product of the measuring system itself (tongue) hence your measurements will always be circular and biased...
No they won't, some tongues are better than others. We have simply explained how one evaluation is explained by a corresponding hierarchy, and we can do this again if you so wish. There's nothing circular about this. This is biased, of course, and it is biased towards the distinction between better and the worse.

>It's not merely that quality in literature or cuisine have no measurable effect
Of course they do; a great novel makes my day. So does a fine steak and chip and game of cod with the lads. Maybe it doesn't make other people's days, but that's not reason enough to declare that it's a matter of subjectivity, that simply establishes that different people like different things.

>>1755794
secondary models. in using them though, we confuse the first order performativity and second order views. their proper relationship is...well, provide a space in which to draw relationships i guess is the shape of the logic.

>>1756008
>what subject?

A human subject, if you like.

>>"The cat sits on the mat"
>can always be said to imply a subject;
>>"(I think/assert/feel/etc that) the cat sits on the mat"
>What's this called again, referential opacity?

Yeah, you can make objective statements /about/ a thing's subjectivity, but you still aren't describing the subjectivity itself.

d&e you can't reduce the subject away. secondary analysis is fine. just as you can reflect on your own behavior, it is an existing human function might as well use it.

obviously the general sceptical result is retarded but w/e kids know that when they are 5 years old literally.

>>1756068

i don't think it all boils down to biological determinism, necessarily

could you really say that a man with more sensitive tastebuds who's never tasted an apple before can judge the taste of an apple better than a man with an inferior tongue who's tasted every extant apple cultivar?

>>1756056
>Quality, in art is a function of the individual perceiving it
sure
>The human imposes quality unconsciously, he doesn't detect it.
sure but really once you work out how 'detecting it' should be used there's no problem in saying it's detected, besides the point tho

>Quantity, in science is a function of nature
Nothing is a function of nature, or everything is a function of nature. Take your pick.

>measured by some instrument
instruments don't measure anything, individuals do
You gotta be careful with those words man they'll trick you

>>1756068
>So does a fine steak and chip and game of cod with the lads.

D&E, what is subjectivity?

The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not true.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist.

To experience without intention is to sense the world;
To experience with intention is to anticipate the world.
These two experiences are indistinguishable;
Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.

>>1756075
>A human subject, if you like.
But if we said 'a specific human', or something similar we'd lose nothing in that sentence. Using subject here just seems unnecessary besides being a convenient shortcut.

>>1756076
>d&e you can't reduce the subject away. secondary analysis is fine. just as you can reflect on your own behavior, it is an existing human function might as well use it.
I have absolutely no issue with the subject construed in its linguistic usage.

>>1756077
>could you really say that a man with more sensitive tastebuds who's never tasted an apple before can judge the taste of an apple better than a man with an inferior tongue who's tasted every extant apple cultivar?
Depends on whether inferior tongues that have tasted more apples overall than one strong tongue that's never tasted one. There's no reason to assume that this isn't empirically determinable, unless someone would care to provide a coherent counterargument.

>>1756079

but you missed the point again.
When measuring distance we have unbiased tools that give us a measure. What they are measuring actually exists (There is an actual distance between objects). Humans use the tool, they aren't the tool.

In the case of art there is no actual quality that they measure, it exists absolutely no where.
And moreover, they aren't using an unbiased instrument...each person is the tool, and each tool gives a different reading, and no tool is better than the other, because they aren't measuring a real thing.

And why do ppl want art to have objective quality? Seems ridiculous to me...It doesn't mean anything.
Even if objective quality existed somewhere, no human would be able to detect it...they have no way unbiased tool, and no access to that realm...they can't even approximate it at all

>>1756093
>And why do ppl want art to have objective quality? Seems ridiculous to me...It doesn't mean anything.

because of pride and insecurity.
they spent a lot of time reading and thinking about art, yet they acquired no knowledge, no facts, nothing. In the end their opinion is just as good as the novices...this infuriates artfags, so they pretend there is some objectivity in art...

>>1756093
Stop telling me I'm missing your point, because I'm showing you that the point you are making is mistaken.

>When measuring distance we have unbiased tools that give us a measure
Tools don't give us anything, they simply facilitate our ability to do things

>In the case of art there is no actual quality that they measure
Of course there is. Cinematography for film, literariness for literature, the level of definition and the size of musculature for bodybuilding.

>they aren't using an unbiased instrument...each person is the tool
As I have already said, there is no problem with being biased. Some bias is worse than other bias.

>And why do ppl want art to have objective quality?
Art has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity

>they spent a lot of time reading and thinking about art, yet they acquired no knowledge, no facts, nothing. In the end their opinion is just as good as the novices

Nah, you're just a pleb that should be stoned for your impudence.

>>1756108
>Of course there is. Cinematography for film, literariness for literature, the level of definition and the size of musculature for bodybuilding.

go read the daodejing again you silly.

>>1755978
>>1756099

>>1756120
go read instructions for the tenzo

>>1756120
oh right I get it

>>1756108
>Of course there is. Cinematography for film, literariness for literature

Problem #1 how do you know?
you cant measure any of those things objectively (like distance). you can barely define what they mean.

Problem #2, why that criteria?
what is the logic that correlates literariness to "quality"? Someone can just as easily say "horror" or "puns" is what determines the quality of literature.. he wouldn't be anymore right than you.

>Art has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity

half-right, it has nothing to do with objectivity.

>literariness for literature

what a fucken retard, and nice way to beg the question.

"funniness for funny things"

>>1756068
>So does a fine steak and chip and game of cod with the lads.

Pretty funny that you're trying to be ironic by repeating something you said in total seriousness in the past.

Maybe you should die?

>>1756141
>you cant measure any of those things objectively
I've already told you, this has nothing to do with objectivity

>you can barely define what they mean
Family resemblance definition, which is quite possible in this case among many others, is hardly bare

>what is the logic that correlates literariness to "quality"
The same logic that correlates organs in good functioning state to "healthy".

Can any of you fags tell the difference between the phrases:
"honey has sweetness"
and
"honey is sweet"?

>>1756145
>way to beg the question.
I'm not begging the question, I simply haven't been asked to tell you what literariness means or haven't assumed (quite rightly you will find) that such a term is questionable. By all means you're entitled to ask me what I mean.

>>1756148
>I've already told you, this has nothing to do with objectivity

Then why are you pretending it does? Why do you make analogies like this one:

>The same logic that correlates organs in good functioning state to "healthy".

Elaborate.

>>1756145
>"funniness for funny things"
That's not the same as what I said, because not all literature has literariness as I use it.

>>1756157
>Then why are you pretending it does?
I'm not, you just can't see past this distinction.

>Elaborate.
A logic that is based on relations in other words, which has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity

>Some insecure asspie faggot desperately trying to convince himself that his career path has the smallest semblance of value.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

>>1756161

>A logic that is based on relations in other words, which has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity

What sort of relations? I don't understand how this relates to quality in the sense that functioning organs relate to health...

and if it has nothing to do with subjective/objective, what does quality in art have to do with?

You aren't making much sense at this point...

>>1756184
>What sort of relations?
relations between things in the world

>I don't understand how this relates to quality in the sense that functioning organs relate to health...
Some works of art are better than other works of art by the quality of their composition, some functioning organs are better than other functioning organs by the quality of their composition. Their relationship to other works/organs determines how we understand the quality of their composition.

>and if it has nothing to do with subjective/objective, what does quality in art have to do with?
series of relations

>You aren't making much sense at this point...
Please do not project your inability to understand me as a lack of sense on my part.

>>1756181
I take it you agree with OP's general sentiment seeing as your talk of value wouldn't amount to much otherwise

it's fine to recognize that a standard has to be sincere. but, this is a very thin thing. your "literariness" as a standard is just insipid dogma.

>>1756210
>your "literariness" as a standard is just insipid dogma
nonsense, because literariness is flexible and open to change; it can be extended and contracted as properly needed (i.e. provided such extensions and contractions are not brought about by charlatans and tricksters)

>>1756196
I do, but that's not the point. The point is that this whole thread shows how desperate you are to convince yourself that your future career has just as much value as that of a Manager, a Personal Trainer, or a Doctor, and the result is that this is a sad thread because you are a sad individual who suffers from an existential doubt of your self worth.

The fact that I had to explain this to you indicates that you should do what the attached picture says immediately so as to never pass on your inferior genes to future generations, you fucking beta.

>>1756235
>I do
Okay thanks for posting

>>1755948
It's not really That good for discussion

Literature/music/paintings or what have you are subjective because none of their qualities have inherent value. The value that can be asserted with reason is only relative.

>>1756216
nope, it is a container still.

>>1756246
>Literature/music/paintings or what have you are subjective because none of their qualities have inherent value
Nothing has inherent anything. Inherence has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity.

> The value that can be asserted with reason is only relative.
Yes, a person who knows nothing about art may not value the same art as an art expert. This does not mean that the art is subjective. Just that it is relative.

What the hell is "literariness"?

>>1756254
go back to picking on truman

>>1756261
a family resemblance of formal qualities (techniques, etc) in literature that determine value of a text

>>1756193

you still haven't shown how relationships in art come together and produce anything remotely resembling "health"

you keep repeating things like
>series of relations
>relations between things in the world

which are just vague nothings..

Give me a concrete relationship in literature, beyond following the rules of grammar and spelling, that indicate quality..

(i.e positive health benefit; an anti-tumor gene)

Give me also a negative quality a book should lack in order to be healthy.
(negative health benefit; a lack of aids)


aids = objectively bad, health detriment
anti-tumor gene = objectively good, health benefit

give me the literary versions of these things.

Tolstoy hated Shakespeare and Nabokov hated Hemingway. I guess their literary 'taste buds' just weren't on the same level as /lit/, huh?

>>1756266
artists usually know fuck-all about their own work or field of work, at least from a critical point of view. critics and artists are different careers...

thank you for that pic, OP

you are a top notch troll and I lol'd

>>1756262
>that determine value
That should really read "that are the criteria with which to determine"

>>1756265
>which are just vague nothings
Do you have trouble understanding what a relationship between two things are?

>Give me a concrete relationship in literature, beyond following the rules of grammar and spelling, that indicate quality..
That would be quite impossible because you are asking me to give you a relationship without using the rules that constitute such a relationship to begin with. But you are deluded so I will give you an example assuming you had properly said what you wanted to. The masterful use of metaphor, alliteration, assonance

>Give me also a negative quality a book should lack in order to be healthy.
Cliché, when not applied in a manner that contributes to the overall quality of the text

faggot appeals to subjectivity is the only defense faggot e-readers have of their degenerate medium

when a master race physical book reader puts them in their place they just retort with "BUT ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE"

e-readers are scum and should all be exterminated

>>1756266
Deep&Edgy probably hates Hemingway too, lol

>>1756278
no its physical book lovers that use sentimental feelings as an argument.

>>1755935
d&e you know better than to ask a question in that form. i'd say 'in this context' blah but that too maybe you'll take in a linguistic way. there is no bothering with you if you can't see the value of various activities one can do with literature apart from "literariness"

>>1756300
>there is no bothering with you if you can't see the value of various activities one can do with literature apart from "literariness
I have said that there is no value in literature besides the artistic use of literature, that would just be absurd

>>1756277

>Positive: The masterful use of metaphor, alliteration, assonance

>Negative: Cliché, when not applied in a manner that contributes to the overall quality of the text

I assume the positives only apply when "they contribute to the overall quality of the text" (i.e masterful use).

Which brings us back to the question you keep dodging, what criteria constitute quality in a book?

And why that criteria, why alliteration and not cliche? Alliteration can be shit, and cliche can be masterful, depending on how it's used right? So you still haven't said anything relevant. Keep going.

>>1756302
*have never
derp

>>1756305
>mfw I agree with you and the tripfag is fail troll

>>1756305
>Which brings us back to the question you keep dodging, what criteria constitute quality in a book?
I haven't been dodging anything. The family resemblance, rules and vocabularly of literary techniques in artistic literature

>And why that criteria, why alliteration and not cliche? Alliteration can be shit, and cliche can be masterful, depending on how it's used right?
They could be whatever, they could be a different set of rules in any number of possible worlds, they do change over time, and so on and so forth. I have never said that such rules and techniques are fixed, only the ones which determine the quality of a text in the present, and such rules will of course change depending on a number of factors.

>>1756321
>only the ones which determine the quality of a text in the present
*I have only concerned myself with the ones

>>1755705

>if you think isn't

and what if I think is?

I don't know how to define this post... it's so special.

I really know of no other way to describe its language as being Deepy&Edgy-isms.

I've compiled a short list:

>If you think isnt
>stupid sounding
>literature or music or anything else
>your retarded

Simply beautiful.

>only the ones which determine the quality of a text in the present, and such rules will of course change depending on a number of factors.

> such rules will of course change depending on a number of factors.

ya like the preferences of the reader, ok.

>>1756353
Sure, along with the preferences of different groups, such as the academia.
Too bad preferences aren't subjective.

>>1756321

confirmed for subjectivist, trolled himself in the end.

>>1756357

>Sure, along with the preferences of different groups, such as the academia.

all of which have equal legitimacy, i.e zero.

>Too bad preferences aren't subjective.

How do you figure?

>>1756358
none of that is subjective

>>1756370
>all of which have equal legitimacy, i.e zero.
this has nothing to do with legitimacy

>How do you figure?
because nothing is subjective. You are free to tell me exactly how a preference is in any way subjective.

>>1756277

>Cliché, when not applied in a manner that contributes to the overall quality of the text
>overall quality of the text

So it's a negative quality when it's not a positive quality. You're a real winner.

I love how all you do is pick apart other people's posts, while contributing nothing yourself. It's really quite amusing. Top notch.

>>1756386
>So it's a negative quality when it's not a positive quality
I'm not saying that; I'm saying that one literary technique can be used well and thus can contribute to the overall quality of a text, or it can be used badly and detract from the overall quality of a text.

>your retarded
>If you think isnt just as

>>1756377
>because nothing is subjective.

Elaborate...

>You are free to tell me exactly how a preference is in any way subjective.

A preference is subjective in the sense that it is only experienced and known by the subject directly.
It doesn't exist outside the individual, it has a completely 1st person existence.

Jesus christ, D&E is making sense!

Someone check the barometer in hell!

well at least this faggot is keeping it all in his own herpy thread today. hi honey what'd you do today? oh I hung out with mom, worked, went to the park, how about you? i was on 4cahn all day making greentext arguments with anonymous posters about literary theory! and the day before! and the day before! and before that! and on and on! and tomorrow and on and on the other way! subjective herp derp 4chonz my degree at work!!!!

>>1756428
Spelling is subjective you fool

>>1756463
>Elaborate...
The burden of proof is on those who wish to assert something is subjective, which has yet to be proven

>A preference is subjective in the sense that it is only experienced and known by the subject directly
What subject? and how is that in any way subjective?

>It doesn't exist outside the individual
You mean it doesn't exist outside a body? Holy shit guys, the whole earth is in my body right now!

>it has a completely 1st person existence
what has a completely 1st person existence? (by the way, you're applying a grammatical term of perspective to perspectiveless state of affairs)

>>1756515
>perspectiveless state of affairs
Wellll, you could entirely reverse that but it's pretty hard for people to accept that a rock has a perspective. I blame western thought. Maybe in another 1000 years people will be willing to entertain it.

>>1756515

>What subject? and how is that in any way subjective?

The human is the subject. They are subjective because they are structured by the subject's mind, and are only known to him or her.

>You mean it doesn't exist outside a body? Holy shit guys, the whole earth is in my body right now!

More specifically, it doesn't exist outside their consciousness.

Your experience of a dream is unique to your consciousness, and no one else is privy to it.

>what has a completely 1st person existence?

things, like dreams, preferences, values, etc.
Things not open to 3rd person observation (objective inspection)


Explain why you think nothing is subjective.
Do you have a reason to believe that other than your misunderstanding of the concepts subjective and objective ?

>>1756582
>They are subjective because they are structured by the subject's mind
But a mind is just a series of neurons firing. What could possibly be subjective about that?

>it doesn't exist outside their consciousness
but consciousness is just neural fibers firing, and the earth couldn't possibly be contained in neural fibers.

So far you've just told me that what is subjective is a bunch of brain wiring, but that's just relative.

>>1756582
>things, like dreams, preferences, values, etc.
furthermore, all of these things you are trying to demonstrate subjectivity with presuppose what you're trying to prove in the first place, which is the subject

wait when did we stop talking about apples

>>1756621

Mind-body problem.

Read about it.

>>1756629
I'm familiar with it, and that doesn't serve as a problem for anything I've said. You're free to give me a counterargument instead of pointing out problems that don't affect me, howver.

>>1756626

they don't just presuppose the subject, their existence is conditional upon the existence of a subject

if there are dreams then ipso facto there is a subject experiencing and structuring them them.

Everything is relative and dependent, but not everything has the same type of dependency, some are subjective others objective.

>>1756666

a dream, as experienced by neurologists is just neurons firing in a brain. This is a 3rd person perspective open to all.

the actual dream itself as experienced by the sleeper, is 1st person, 100% subjective.

>>1756825
>they don't just presuppose the subject, their existence is conditional upon the existence of a subject
They are neuron firings of some individual. How is any of this subjective?

>some are subjective others objective.
You have yet to point out to me something that is subjective

>>1756833
>the sleeper, is 1st person,
The sleeper is an individual whose neurons are firing in some pattern. 1st person is a grammatical term. How is any of this subjective in any way whatsoever?

>>1756851
>You have yet to point out to me something that is subjective
or even objective, lol

>>1756851
>neurons firing
>neurons everywhere

yes they are part of the material chain of causality that give rise to a subjective experience.
It is subjective for the reasons stated earlier.

>1st person is a grammatical term
Yes, and much more than that.
It's a description of a property unique to all subjective experiences, preferences, values, etc. They exist via a 1st person perspective.

Unlike objective entities, that exist via a 3rd person, public perspective.

That is why dreams are subjective (they exist only to an individual and only via 1st person reference) while distance and health are objective properties, able to be discerned via the 3rd person, via the public)


You still haven't explained what you think subjective is, and why you believe nothing is it.

>>1756833
I think you'll find observing some neurons firing doesn't make a dream anymore than a pile of wood makes a chair.

>>1756913

yep, dreams are much more than that...

>>1756922
>implying a chair is anything more than a pile of wood

>>1756931
yep, it has an organized structure held together by nails and screws and put together by someone

it has a function, depending on its context

it has a color, depending on its coating and paint, a price, perhaps even a subjective sentiment attached to it...

>>1756967
>yep, it has an organized structure held together by nails and screws and put together by someone
Wrong on every count. Chairs are chairs if they are treated or thought of as such, much is the same for dreams.

>>1756302
then why are you restricting people's ontology? i say fuck you, let the kid say a book is great because it's colorful. that's a valuable personal expression. fuck your elitist shit.

>>1756908
>yes they are part of the material chain of causality that give rise to a subjective experience.
That's just presupposing the very thing you're trying to prove

>It is subjective for the reasons stated earlier.
What reasons?

>It's a description of a property unique to all subjective experiences, preferences, values, etc. They exist via a 1st person perspective.
That doesn't describe any property, it just's a grammatical term. Grammatical terms don't describe anything in reality.

>>1757030
What's elitist about recognising that some people are better fit to speak about some things than others, and that some things are better according to a relative standard than others?
A kid can say a book is great for whatever reason he wants so long as he doesn't mistake it for a critical evaluation.

Duration is subjective.

The reason that aesthetics seem arbitrary and subjective is the fact that there's such an abundance of aesthetic values. Within these values taste is not subjective. Complexity, for example, is an easily demonstrable value. I'm pretty sure these foundational values aren't arbitrary either, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps they can be demonstrated as consistently generating certain effects in the reader, listener, etc.

D&E: come at me bro?

>>1758562
>What's elitist about recognising that some people are better fit to speak about some things than others, and that some things are better according to a relative standard than others?

because subjectively, people ALWAYS assume they're the ones who can objectively say who is or isn't. also, they always think they're the ones who are better fit to speak on such things. it's a don quixote issue of being oblivious to oneself.

>>1758583
>The reason that aesthetics seem arbitrary and subjective is the fact that there's such an abundance of aesthetic values
I wouldn't be too quick to say there are an abundance of aesthetic values, just a whole lot of pseudo-values, "imbecile truths" to quote Deleuze, that have arisen due to the sway of relations of power. But I guess recognising that there is a plurality of values in aesthetics that appear to get in the way of putting forward any straight, closed account of values is important, and I'm a bit too drunk right now to further go into it.

But yeah dude, that all sounds reasonable enough.

>>1758588
>people ALWAYS assume they're the ones who can objectively say who is or isn't
Really? I don't have any problem admitting even someone as clueless as mogwai is more of an authority on music than I am. This is far from an ever-present fact of society; authority has been appreciated throughout the ages, whether it be the counsel of priests on the bible or doctor's opinion. It's quite frankly a blatant lie to assume everyone has always considered themselves the arbiters of who is an authority and who isn't.

>>1758602
i would say history shows an everlasting struggle with authority.

i partly agree that there are certain people more suitable for some jobs than others. however, there seems to be a spark of the irrational at work, and some people can discover that a job they thought they would be shitty at, they're great at. people are discovering things they are good or bad at all the time. and what could be one, could be the other in ten years' time or after a little work. or maybe after studying with the right person.

i'm probably one of the people you complain about in the op's pic. i'm not that extreme though.

I'm the best tripfag on /lit/

so it turns out that bizarre strawman positions that no one actually believes aren't valid

rad

>>1758661
I'm glad you agree with me that all that subjectivism amounts to is a strawman argument

thanks bro

>>1755949
Ok, I'm going to take this way back in the conversation because this was basically what I was getting at, especially when I responded to the "Now that's just circular."
The subject-object is only a construct for practical purposes. It doesn't really exist. Subject is, object is in relation to it. And vice versa.
Subject is objective, and object is subjective. It can be played out as a mind game into infinite recursions. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a sort of... Heisenberg principle? in all of this. You can only define a subjective but you can't identify the subject. You can only designate an object but you can't determine its objectivity.
This is horribly garbled and I'm having an incredibly hard time trying to express it, but D&E I'd like it if you actually stated what it is you mean when you say I'm "on the right path" and yet also "deluded." I mean this seriously, it's been going around and around in my head. If you have an answer, some sort of construct or concept to express, please do so.

>applying subjective reasoning to objective concepts such as time

might as well dildo yourself with a fuck

>>1758682
lol. oh d&e you're such a fucking kidder. you a funny man, you know that? you a funny funny man.

>>1756008
Some are 'better' at evaluating the quality of taste of an object? Prove it, empirically. Oh, and define 'quality' empirically while you are at it.

>>1755991
Why yes divine right did work well, didn't it?

>>1756377
Did you mean to state
>>nothing is subjective
?

>>1758686
>The subject-object is only a construct for practical purposes.
It's not a construct anymore than seeing colors is a construct, don't be so hard on the human being. The subject-object distinction is a necessary, healthy part of everyday life. So to take such a distinction as a construct I think is a bit of a put-down on the magnificently functioning organism we know to be the human body. This distinction works fine, up until the point where we take it to be the be-all end all of cognition, but that's another issue. I'm not in the main concerned with the subject-object distinction, on a cognitive basis. What I am concerned with is the position of subjectivity, which is based on a diseased notion of objectivity and subjectivity. Now, take notice of the way people have been using subjectivism in this thread, I think you will find that in every case such a usage is reducible to relativism. THAT is where the actual issue lies, not this subject garbage, because the notion of a subject is an intellectual myth on the level of the soul and free will; and this can come to be known whether you read Althusser on interpellation, Baudrillard on the sign system or the Tao or Zhuangzi or anyone else.
Now let's go back to what you said:

>Unless of course the values of objective standards are subjective, and that's where the true meaning of subjectivity lies.
You're correct in getting to the heart of the matter by sweeping aside the difference of values; the values of objective standards are RELATIVE, and that's where the true value of value lies. You need to stop wasting time on this subjective/objective thing.

>>1758724
>*the values of objective standards are RELATIVE
get rid of the word "objective" there, as I've already made clear I want nothing to do with that idiotic shit

>>1758695
>Some are 'better' at evaluating the quality of taste of an object? Prove it, empirically. Oh, and define 'quality' empirically while you are at it.
I don't need to, I have simply been making the argument that such evaluations are in theory empirical, which no-one has as of yet been capable of refuting.
Quality is always relative to some empirical standard, such as the degree to which it contributes towards the maximal flourishing of humanity.

>Why yes divine right did work well, didn't it?
I meant to say divine right by the way everyone

>>1758724
So are you stating that intrinsic value theories are simply wrong?

>>1758736
>intrinsic value theories are simply wrong?
intrinsic value theories are simply retarded

>>1758724
i'm surprisingly down with this, honestly, although i think you're making more of your claim than you need to

but if your point is that we should talk about relativism instead of subjectivity, i am perfectly fine with that. there's a relation between the two concepts, certainly, but i don't object to any of your usage really. i am not sure also why you are so concerned about the distinction between relative and subjective and the proper usage of the terms - what the stakes are, i guess.

>>1758730
>>Quality is always relative to some empirical standard, such as the degree to which it contributes towards the maximal flourishing of humanity

Fascinating. See, I meant 'empirical' as in 'verifiable by mens of experimentation' not some squishy 'contributing towards the maximally undefinable soft definition that means nothing, really' value.

>>1758738
stating so doesn't make it so, I fear. Show your work

>>1758724
>I don't need to, I have simply been making the argument that such evaluations are in theory empirical, which no-one has as of yet been capable of refuting.
>Quality is always relative to some empirical standard, such as the degree to which it contributes towards the maximal flourishing of humanity.

But doesn't that lack of ability to evaluate these things, and even then if we could evaluate them to then place them within an understanding of what is "maximal," "flourishing," or hell, even what is "humanity" pretty much necessitate a subjective-objective stance? We would have to evaluate what any of those are through empirical means. We can empirically express what a human is through the genome, sure, but how can we possibly evaluate that into any cognitive stance on what is "humanity"? It's too multi-faceted.
This is what I mean by infinite recursions. All you can do is over and over again state what you mean in self-referential ways. Meanwhile, the other person does the same. And never is the relativity itself resolved; this makes us by necessity have to resort to the subject-object.
Relative is circular, and we have the subject-object to divide the circle and provide ourselves with a straight line.

>>1758744
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding what human flourishing and its maximalisation amounts to. For some examples, consider the progress made by the human race from cave-paintings to leonardo da vinci, and from treating smallpox to curing cancer. How mystical.

>>1758753
>But doesn't that lack of ability to evaluate these things
There hasn't been any lack of ability to evaluate anything demonstrated so far, you're free to point out something that you think is incapable of being evaluated

>necessitate a subjective-objective stance?
No, it necessitates acknowledging that such a web of knowledge and concepts is relational. This is similar to the Buddhist concept of interdependent arising, and slightly similar to the coherentist account of epistemology.

>how can we possibly evaluate that into any cognitive stance on what is "humanity"? It's too multi-faceted.
Don't sell yourself short. Hell, become a narrow-minded pragmatist if you have to. That it is too multi-faceted for you signifies your inability to cut the regress off at some point that is conducive to the ends, which are relative, you are pursuing. You are never going to nail it all down, such a pursuit is a mirage produced by the way our language works. That there is no agreement at what the cut-off point lies does not refute the entire project.

>This is what I mean by infinite recursions. All you can do is over and over again state what you mean in self-referential ways.
You know, Zhuangzi highlights this as the fundamental problem with disputation; two people have their own different meanings so nothing can come of the exchange. This is a craving for specificity that language will never be able to fully satisfy. The moral is that you focus on UNDERSTANDING what someone means and what can be done with it. All of these problems of circularity and regress arise either through fallacious thinking or demanding a level of specificity that language by its nature cannot provide.

>>1758782
>This is a craving for specificity that language will never be able to fully satisfy.
Well, here it might be more apt to say we have reached the limits of our language, to be fairly stark naked in our outlook

>>1758782
lol, you really think you have an absolutely valid, explicit account of eudaimonia

pls tell me what it is thx, oh great and mighty sage *places hands hands under chin, gazes eagerly up*

just because something it's real,
does not mean it does not matter,
i.e race, family, religion, nations, culture, art
none of these things are fundamental to the universe yet they matter at a practical scale.

>>1758782
Failure to address the question/ad hominem.

hey d&e this is what i think of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15PE7iGT0U&t=36s

>>1758898
bigger fish to fry, sorry

>>1758908
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>1758912

>I haven't really got an answer and am trying to save face

Stay classy, D&E.