/lit/ - Literature

at first i wanted to say something but then all i saw was

u mad?u mad?u mad?u mad?u mad?u mad?

ITT

neither deep nor edgy

Can't read the green text in the last panel. And I have the feeling that it's the key to this comic.

So some first years think you have shitty taste in books?

I agree with this fully so it's kind of awkward that you're trolling.

Taste in literature is subjective. Now, hold on a moment. I said taste, as in 'what people enjoy' in literature. Of course a lot of whinging faggots will say that their favorite works are -objectively- better than works they like less so, and then we have all these arguments and whatnot.

I think an important element in this debate is the parameters against which the works are judged. In any argument, all parties should establish definitions for terms they can all agree on. If one person thinks books are meant solely to entertain then their entertainment is the only qualification a piece has to meet in order to be great in their eyes. Another may think more critically about literature and decide that one piece is better than another based on the complexity and demonstration of mastered techniques. If these two people were trying to decide which novel of two is better, they would almost certainly disagree.

It's crucial that we establish our bar for greatness, because then there are quantifiable aspects to the novel or story or whatever that can be discussed in a more reasonable way in order to achieve a consensus.

never change d&e, you are the best thing about this board no homo

>>1788420

I am the best tripfag on /lit/

idk, it's rather low level. the only interesting point is how mad d&e gets when kids on the internet don't take his homework seriously

>>1788431
here is an L and E
protip: think of both letters as huge, then say them in sequence and without connectives to yourself

>>1788431
Why you hatin' on D&E?

>9000 posts
>4% average content

>>1788448
i can't read you gotta read it out loud to me

Quality depends on function.

Y u so mad D & E?

D&E is not intelligent, he's over-educated. Huge difference. Intelligence generates positive things in the world. Over-education inflates fools egos and leads to images like the one he's worked so hard on here.

>>1788448
Don't get it, it's an inside joke between you and onionring? It's about God and forsaking?

>>1788458
training him against a stronger ego

>>1788481
"Huge 'L' 'E'"

hyu-jell-ee

>>1788485
got it now, thanks

kind of good for a beginner

>>1788496
What qualifies you to be anything more than that?

a strawman argument in the form of a comic strip? i love strawman arguments in the form of comic strips!

>>1788504

>>1788392

> The text on the right is superior to the text on the left.
> superior

This depends on what are the parameters considered to evaluate the quality of the work. Do you seriously believe that the definition of "superior" can be used irregardless of the bases of the discussion?


I don't come to this board very often, so if this guy is a troll, would someone please alert me?

>>1788431

>>1788516
I'm all out of trollfaces. :(

>>1788516
>irrelevant

>>1788516
>irregardless

>>1788523
>>1788528

I didn't comprehend these posts

>>1788516

Run while you can, D&E is one of the most powerful, stupid trolls on 4chan. If you get out now, there is still a chance you can flee!

>>1788448

I choose to interpret this "ily" or "i love you"

subjectively, why haven't /lit/'s janitors been permabanned yet

>>1788392
It's because they think science is the only thing that is objective.

>in a nutshell
>using eight "panels" to get point across
>rendering the last block of text illegible

Don't even get me started on the whole concept behind this. Reported for unrelated content.

E-READERS ARE OBJECTIVELY BAD

THANK YOU DEE AND EEE

>>1788546

>janitors

lols

>>1788546
>janitors
>/lit/

permaban what now?

bumping for the late crowd

>>1788392
Man, you struggle with the most simple of concepts don't you? Don't worry, one day you will graduate high-school. Your young brain is still developing.

>>1788807
dam /lit/ , I've been 15 minutes here and I'm loving deep and edgy allready.

>>1788820

Guide To Essential Witch House

>>1788858

>>178892
wow u mad
u so mad
y u so mad
o u mad cuz u think u deep n edgy
lol but u r not
cuz u r gay n queer
lollolol faggggggotttt

Don't think I didn't see that you clumsy moron

>>1788932
Nice deletion of the last digit to cover up that you deleted the post that that posts refers to.

>>1788932
>>178892
wat

>>1788942
whatever you say buddy

i think we both knew you were typing out a quote link or something stupid like that, and your finger slipped or you forgot the last digit, shamefully

I have been eating dog shit for over 20 years and i can finally say beyond a reasonable doubt that it is absolutely delicious.It was my unbiased nature to keep at it even when my taste buds told me to stop.Now it taste like delicious chocolate and ice cream and pizza and chicken and steak all mixed into one.Which in the end makes my argument objective.Your missing out /lit/ Dog shit is delicious

>>1788966
>Which in the end makes my argument objective
no it doesnt

it just means that you really like dogshit. maybe if you were a professional food critic and it were reasonably possible for dogshit to be tasty to human beings that weren't mentally ill that would be worth something

>>1788974
stop being retarded. i get a headache just from looking at your thread are you happy

>>1788974

>maybe if you were a professional

how does it feel to base your entire existence off the appeal to authority fallacy

>>1788977
yeah, maybe it's a little hard for you to work through

>>1788979
how am I appealing to authority, and how am I committing a fallacy

>>1788974
What exactly is your idea of professionalism?I would think anyone who has been eating dog shit for 20 years qualifies as a professional dog shit eater.Thats called experience,my friend.

Is D&E ever NOT on /lit/?

>>1788984
>work through it
no thanks

>>1788987
Im on here more than he is, and when he's on he makes it a better place. IF only he would post more...**sigh**

>>1788986
>I would think anyone who has been eating dog shit for 20 years qualifies as a professional dog shit eater.Thats called experience,my friend.
no that's just doing one thing over and over for twenty years, which by itself is worthless. Experience, in the sense you are using it, implies more than simply repetition.

>>1788992
And that's partly why you're a less capable judge of literature, philosophy, music and video-games than I am

twilight > ulysses as a work of timeless fiction that will be appreciated in 100 years from now. discuss

>/lit/ - a place to vent your insecurities over your career path
also i wouldn't bother learning western music theory unless you play on being a classical musician d&e.

>>1789005
>>1789009
>>1789015

Three sages in a row deserves a bump. Also, you should check out literary theory that hasn't just occurred in the last 30 years. That would be anywhere from the greek period up to structuralism. I'll be cheeky and suggest contemporary theories such as new pragmatism as well.

>>1789004

>>1789022
Sorry Ty but regardless of whether I intend on producing classical music I will value the aggregate conventions and rules of generations of European Aristocrats that have produced a large deal of man's greatest works on the planet over a bunch of crappy chord progressions stolen from black slaves by the bourgeois that has produced about a century of shitty culture industry garbage

i think D&E should quit posting until he gets out of a school for a couple years

but i think he's gonna hide there forever

>>1789038
>over a bunch of crappy chord progressions stolen from black slaves by the bourgeois that has produced about a century of shitty culture industry garbage
or, you know, anything from outside of Europe...

>>1789023
>still avoiding the xkcd comic

>>1789038
>implying one "produces" classical music

>>1789045
I'm not above considering the aristocratic or noble-born elements of different cultures; problably going to be a worthless endeavour considering they did not turn out to be the dominant, most expansive values of our age but you never know

>>1789048
how am I avoiding the xkcd comic

>>1789048
no, one produces music

>>1789059

>>1789038

It's ok, you're just not a pop music expert.

lol

>>1789070
About as useful as being a dogshit expert, so nothing lost there

"Brother, do you see all these peasants with their pitchforks? They seem incensed, but I do not know why they are up in arms."

"They jelly brah."

"Are you suggesting that haters are gonna hate?"

"Yeah, that's the one brah."

>>1789086
I enjoyed that comic.

sage

>>1789743
That is how you fucking fail right there. Holy fuck.

>>1789086
lol @the reduced planck constant out of nowhere

>>1789086
>$105 dollars can't be divided 3 ways equally
How very subtle.

>>1789864
They have 5 twenties and 1 five.

>>1789874
So what? IOUs or change, they all still get $35 each.

>>1789749
>yuro wake up time
>op bumping his own post
>too ashamed to put on his trip and bump with no content
>mfw a whole thread of only his and his alter-egos bumps, and the rest sages

>tripfags don't use tripcoding correctly
>maintain a reputation
>4chan

oh you guys
can't you get your affirmation elsewhere?

cancerous beings

Out of nowhere, reality.

>>1789893
wtf is yuro? another japanese-weird-fetish-thing?

>>1789904
A hierarchy of purposes and desires could be established, allowing for an objective view of things.

>>1789904
Nicely done.

It'll fall on deaf ears with old DerpNderpy, though.

>>1789941
I guess that would be an ersatz objectivity. Wouldn't the hierarchy itself be subjective? It's likely as pragmatic as one can get though.

This is all...bull...shit....

>>1789941
>A hierarchy of purposes and desires could be established
Even if we ignored that different people/groups would have different hierarchies, and that any hierarchy of consensus would ultimately be based on oppression, people are pretty bad at establishing what we actually need, desire, or what the purpose is.

>>1789962
what a compelling argument you make sir

>>1789941
Hardly, such hierarchy would rely on basic laws of logic, which can only be rejected if one is willing to reject all types of knowledge, which would make him a madman and therefore unfit for debating.

This is what all Traditional world-view have been based on, so we're not just speaking of a hypothetical situation.

It's funny how subjectivists are willing to apply their doctrine to anything but the doctrine itself, which they consider to be objectively right, as evidenced by the fact that they try to rationally defend it, as opposed to just merely state that they think it's right, therefore it is.

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

>>1789965
you are retarded.

only a fattass would agree with >>1789904

people can convince themselves of anything doesnt make it true.

eg: "I like to eat shit, so shit is as good as the finest cuisine."

>>1789971
>implying that fats aren't a necessary part of a balanced diet
The only reason people in the west go on about fruits and vegetables is because most people in the west don't eat enough of them. It doesn't make them inherently "good".

>>1789971
Circular logic much? If I have to explain why, then you're not worth telling any how.

>>1789973
>herp
derp

>>1789973
Fatass detected.

>>1789982
>>1789981
No U.

Seemingly off-topic, but not really:

We can’t have any knowledge of ‘objective reality’ outside of our own subjective, theory-dependent understanding of it. This extends to aesthetic arguments.

>>1789976
You fail to understand the depth of my analogy for the same reason you dont understand op's comic.

Because you are a moron

>>1789986
>>1789976
>Calling each other stupid is an effective argument DERPP

>>1789985
>>1789976

Do you agree with the statement:

"All experience is subjective so there is no way to say that one type of food is better than another. Therefore the statement" A plate full of shit is an inferior dish to a
Classic lasagne" cannot have any validity.

>>1789996
>"All experience is subjective so there is no way to say that one type of food is better than another. Therefore the statement "A plate full of shit is an inferior dish to a Classic lasagne" cannot have any validity."
>Fecal bacteriotherapy is when feces from a close relative or spouse are given to patients suffering from intractable diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile. The purpose is to repopulate the intestines with the normal gut flora (intestinal bacteria) to decimate the clostridium. The healthy stool is administered by nasogastric tube, enema, or in a capsule.
Food for thought. Anyway, the point is not that you can't have any preference, merely that you can't claim that they are somehow more than mere preferences.

>>1789996
No, one could say food A is better than food B if you were willing to give a criteria(for example nutrition). However, the OP comic is appealing to authority as well as almost outright saying that the criteria itself is objective and free from further inquiry(tl;dr sophistry) It's pretty damn tricky hence why I'm a pragmatist.

>>1789999 here
>>1789998 succinctly said what I wanted to say.

>>1789999
>>1789999
I have to agree with the fact that you got quads. Well done sir. While what you are saying is, it's not applicable to op's comic, because he gives criteria: dietician says its better for your health." etc.

>>1790005
>saying is
*saying is true,

>>1790005
It's not a real dietician. Nutrition is not as simple as 'Eat salad'.

>>1790005
Yeah. DerpNderpy has deplorable rhetoric skills.

We know.

/thread.

>>1790011
>>1790011
>It's not a real dietician
Because it's a comic you asshat

>>1790012
I think the analogies from carpentry to diet to music make the point well enough for the purpose of this comic.

>>1790016
And do you believe everything you read in comics? You think Spiderman is real, hmmm?

>>1790017
But don't you think that >>1789904 more accurately describes the real world?

>>1790018
yea pretty much

>>1790019
Do you think it's possible for people to ever make mistakes?

Do you think it's possible for people to ever make mistakes in their choices?

Do you think it's possible for people to ever make mistakes in their life choices?

>>1790026
Picking a shoddy table over a well-crafted one is not a "mistake" in choice. It suits the purpose for which it was made and bought.

Eating a Mars bar is not a "mistake." It suits the purpose for which it was made and bought.

Reading shitty fantasy is not a "mistake." It fulfills its role--the role it was made for, and the role it was bought to fulfill.

OP is a faggot and his comic is dildoes.

We are done here.

>>1790028
who said anything about shoddy tables, mars bars or shitty fantasy novels?

answer the 3 questions especially the 3rd.

>>1790030
Psst. Faggot.
Look at OP's comic.

Deep&Edgy, you should read some Bourdieu. Might contribute towards curing your ignorance.

>>1790033
yeah and to see the point you have to stop taking it literally lol.

the point that you and others are making are that people make choices based on their own preferences in food, tables and literature. I am claiming that often people knowingly or unknowingly make bad choices or mistakes in their choices, then try to cover it up by lying to themselves. You would be a fool to claim this doenst happen all the time.

Sure sometimes reading a twilight book is fine on occasion, but that isnt the op's point, the op is pointing out that some books are from a literary standpoint superior.

dealwithit.mov

>>1790040
Superior to what end?

>>1790045
To the end of the end.

>>1788392

Welcome to Western Nihilism. It's not going anywhere, so just try to bear it. At least you're sane enough to realize what's going on.

I am just curious as to what is so special about this day. Is the OP an oc D&E? If yes, why go to all the trouble?

>>1790057
>what is so special about this day.
It's your birthday!

>>1790040
nobody disagrees with that one, as long as you acknowledge that by literary standing you mean arbitrary (by that I mean consensual standard not reducible to neuroscience) stuff liked by some people with high influence.

I know that was a shitty and somewhat unclear sentence. Sorry.

>>1789904
Out of nowhere, the painful, hard reality for subhumans.

Oh my.

Well, the way I see it, literature is both subjective and objective. Before you start huffing and assuming I'm trying to be one of those people with the self-described 'best opinion' because it is neither here nor there, hear me out.

What you enjoy read, obviously, is a matter of taste (subjective). You couldn't force me to enjoy Moby Dick. I just hate it. I don't think there are many people here who would deny that it is at least decently well written. The sad reality is that my inability to relate to a single aspect of the ordeal prevents me from connecting to any part of it. Ironically, there is some quote by Melville that fits this discussion quite well, but it escapes me at the moment.

There is such a thing as objectively bad literature. The mistake some people here have made is assuming that people can not enjoy bad or mediocre literature. I enjoyed The Hobbit. I enjoyed A Game of Thrones. I am able to distinguish the difference in quality of writing between those two works. One being of superior quality does not make me like the other less.

I will say this, and call it patently obvious: Well written literature is much more easily enjoyed. A well written novel that speaks to me will always take priority of enjoyment over a poorly written novel that I relate well to. This is not because I get my panties in a bunch over poor writing (Not to say I don't, but that's a different topic). It is simply because better writing makes for a better experience.

There are my two pennies on the matter.

>>1790076
>arbitrary (by that I mean consensual standard not reducible to neuroscience) stuff liked by some people with high influence.
it's more along the lines of arbitrary stuff (lol, as if anything isn't arbitrary) liked by some people who've spent their entire lives studying every aspect of that stuff and what other people throughout the course of human history who have spent their entire lives studying every aspect of that stuff have said.

>>1790083
I don't think that's what is meant by subjective Tim.

>>1790094
yeah that guy thinks subjectivity amounts to being relative... wtf????

>>1790094

Subjective, as in characteristic of the individual, yes? The example of course being literature.

>>1790100
>characteristic of the individual
but all that means is that some individual in the world has some characteristic. what's subjective about any of that

>>1790102

Errr. Does subjective not *mean* characteristic of the individual (the subject)? My understanding of it is that objective is defined as a quality of the object and subjective as a quality of the subject (person). Practicality and individuality. Matter and mood.

>>1790118
That is one way it is used. But the actual meaning is "not objective".

>>1790118
>subjective
>quality of the subject
>objective
>quality of the object

Wait....what's the difference again?

>>1790093
I'm ok with this.
One thing I find hard to fathom is people do not differentiate between the normative and descriptive aspect of literary criticism. Especially disregarding a scientific base in the descriptive aspect. Perhaps this is not exactly true for many tried to explain stuff with psychological theories but not in a truly scientific manner. Hopefully as neuroscience continues to develop, aesthetic problems would be discussed in a more agreeable manner.

>>1790120

Words are never defined by the quality of their opposite. They maintain a meaning of their own. Good does not mean not bad, although that is implied.

Subjective, I would say quite obviously, means a quality or qualities of the subject.

>>1790122

The subject. As in the individual subject. Subject meaning the person in question.

The object is a thing. The subject is a person. I can't make it more simple than that.

>>1790133
>The object is a thing. The subject is a person
Cool but what's the difference between people and things

>I can't make it more simple than that.
you can, but what will happen is that you'll end up concluding that the term 'subject' is an arbitrary label used to differentiate a specific kind of thing from other things

>>1790133
First off. This places a special emphasis on conscious observer. I can't see why.

Second: Objective has a deeper meaning. IT means independent of an observer. Subjective means dependent on the observer. So when you use Subjective lightly, you mean that the quality that makes you an observer ans separates you from other such observers, is different in the case of a given object.

>>1790140

Things exist to serve a specific purpose. People do not. If you insist that people are simply intelligent things, that's all fine and dandy, but it's just another needless beating of the area surrounding the bush.

Objects can not intellectually relate to other objects. People can intellectually relate to objects. If an object can not be related to outside of its intended purpose, it can be said to be objective. If an objective can be related to outside of its intended purpose, it can be said to be subjective.

Even well written poetry is hit or miss. Some people will just never like it. That is what makes it subjective. Everyone trying to illuminate a dark room can appreciate a flashlight. Some flashlights are better than others. Relatively few people would knowingly choose an inferior flashlight over a superior flashlight. In this case, flashlights can be said to be objective.

>inappropriately in-depth discussion about semantics for the topic at hand

>>1790141

You are simply restating the definitions of two words. The information has not changed. I said that literature is objective. This is true based on its possessing qualities appreciable by any reader. I said that literature is also subjective in that certain subjects will value certain literature outside of its objective quality.

This conversation between you and I, considering we have agreed on the definitions of these two words, renders no new data. I am not in the habit of having conversations about semantics.

>>1790162
>Things exist to serve a specific purpose
LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL TELEOLOGY LOLOLOLOLO. So what's the purpose of rocks, grass, air, the universe buddy?

>intellectually relate
what does "intellectually relate" mean?

>>1790162
>If you insist that people are simply intelligent things, that's all fine and dandy, but it's just another needless beating of the area surrounding the bush.
is the bush supposed to be a metaphor for your shitty, ill-informed conception of subjectivity, because I'm quite happy to keep beating down all these stupid points you are making in your defence

>>1790169
The idea was to show that Subjective is used differently in different contexts and in what context is D&E using it.

>>1790162
also, why are you using the word 'objective' when I haven't said anything at all about objectivity?

>>1790178
>mfw d+e wastes his whole life doing just this shit

>>1790171

Objective quality is defined in how the object is useful to the definer. I should think that very clear. The objects being said to exist for a specific purpose were obviously created objects, although even non-created objects can be defined by their usefulness.

Intellectually relate. Sentient appreciation. To connect with an object via intellect. The appreciation of a specific quality and how that quality relates to the giver of appreciation. Appreciation of, for example, irony.

You need for explanations of the most basic concepts is staggering.

I give up.

>"I think this book is good!" = individual opinion = subjectivity
>"Everyone thinks this book is good!" = general consensus = objectivity
So, you can say about a piece of literature that it's objectively good when the majority of individual opinions find it to be good.
Don't shoot me, guys. I'm just an engineer who likes to read.

>Objects can not intellectually relate to other objects. People can intellectually relate to objects. If an object can not be related to outside of its intended purpose, it can be said to be objective. If an objective can be related to outside of its intended purpose, it can be said to be subjective.

is this a good thread? probably a subjective matter

>>1790185
>Objective quality is defined in how the object is useful to the definer. I should think that very clear. The objects being said to exist for a specific purpose were obviously created objects, although even non-created objects can be defined by their usefulness.
But I haven't said anything about objectivity, so that has nothing to do with anything I've said. Now, I'll ask again. What's the purpose of rocks, grass, air?

>Intellectually relate. Sentient appreciation. To connect with an object via intellect.
You've said the same thing three times here. What does intellectually relating/sentient appreciation/connecting with an object via intellect mean?

>The appreciation of a specific quality and how that quality relates to the giver of appreciation.
What's subjective about any of that?

I am not going to get an answer here mostly, but l will still ask:

What does arguing to this length give you D&E?

A feeling of superiority? A better understanding of what you think you know? What is it?

And I am not being sarcastic.

>>1790178

You have no made any points. You simply insist on restating precisely the given definition of subjectivity and claiming that your definition is special because you worded a bit differently.

>>1790183

I'm speaking to two people simultaneously, and the other of the two brought up objectivity and its relation to subjectivity. To cover as much ground as possible, I included it in a post that happened to be quoting on of yours. We're discussing the obvious. Again.

In closing, words have meanings. These meanings are well documented in dictionaries and texts on the subject of etymology. We have established the meanings of the words in question. Restating the same meaning with different wording, no matter how persistently done, will not add anything to the discussion.

to subjectivist guy

1) we perceive the objective qualities of an object.
2) a) we interpret these objective qualities and come to an objective judgment (flashlight)
b) we interpret these objective qualities and come to a subjective judgment (literature)

is what you say if I'm not mistaken.

what I don't understand is what's the difference between these mental procedures that leads to these judgments.

>>1790201
>You have no made any points
None besides the one where I've shown how every account of subjectivity you've given me does not amount to anything more than relativity, which is not the same as subjectivity.

>You simply insist on restating precisely the given definition of subjectivity
Yes, because I want to know what subjectivity is, not relativity, which is all you've given me so far.

>In closing, words have meanings. These meanings are well documented in dictionaries and texts on the subject of etymology. We have established the meanings of the words in question. Restating the same meaning with different wording, no matter how persistently done, will not add anything to the discussion.
With all this talk of meaning you should be able to get it through your thick skull that the word 'subjective' or 'subjectivity' does not mean 'relative' or 'relativity'

>>1790197
I think he's sharpening his wits, like a knife against a blunt object, but I may be wrong.

an hero

>>1790214
No. He's wasting his sad life on internet forums arguing idiotic points rather than actually doing something prestigious that'll be in accordance with his enormous (unmerited) ego.

or he may like understanding people or how they think what they think. just like people who like to know about physics or biology, how shit works.

>>1790190

I already have explained what is subjective about it. Individual subjects appreciate things not necessarily appreciated by other subjects. Hence, subjective, specific to the subject. Appreciation of beauty might be universal, but what each subject considers beautiful will vary. I would say then that beauty is subjective.

I despise orange as a colour. Clearly, some people do not. I prefer circles to squares. Apples are my favorite fruit. All of these things are subjective, in this context, because I am defining them conditions specific to me.

It can be objectively stated that orange is a colour. It can be objectively stated that a square is a geometric shape. It can be objectively stated that apples are a culinary fruit. These things are true outside of what I think of them.

In that same way, literature can be of a certain high quality whether or not I like it. That is, in this case, the nature of the object. I can still not appreciate literature that is of a certain high quality. That is the nature of how I, the subject, view the object.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the relationship between subject and object is correlative and not oppositional.

An object having qualities does not mean I will appreciate those qualities (appreciate meaning take advantage of or be able/willing to take advantage of). All of an objects qualities are just that, objective. Only some, if any, of an objects qualities are important to the subject (subjective).

I have contracted a headache.

>>1790232
>Individual subjects appreciate things not necessarily appreciated by other subjects
But that just amounts to one thing being relative to another thing, with the term 'subject' serving to demarcate some specific type of thing. That's not what subjectivity amounts to. I'm not interested in anything you have to say about objectivity, sorry.

>>1790197
see pic

When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Jove's fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a tripfag

D&E it's a beautiful day! I'm gonna go outside and enjoy it! You should too!

>>1790241

In order to better define subjectivity, I compared it to objectivity. Your lack of interest in (my) discussing objectivity is fairly irrelevant. It was not brought up based upon your interest or lack thereof.

>But that just amounts to one thing (subject) being relative to another thing (object), with the term 'subject' serving to demarcate some specific type of thing (the thing, in this case, being a person).

Yes.

>That's not what subjectivity amounts to.

Let's start over for just a brief moment. Could you explain to me, precisely, what you consider subjectivity to amount to?

>>1790244
but someone might try to refute something that he claimed to be true

this thread is a monument to D&E's failed life

>>1790254
>Could you explain to me, precisely, what you consider subjectivity to amount to?
Absolutely nothing, because subjectivity is nothing more than a product of the code of one's sign system. Therefore, anything that can be said to be subjective, that doesn't simply amount to a matter of relativity and labelling, is the illusory product of the sign system's impression of 'subjectivity' on the "individual".

>>1790241
And I thought you had a higher motive or something. Rest easy D&E. This is 4chan. At least defend something better.

>>1790243
Well done for quoting a racist poem and changing "nigger" to "tripfag."

>>1790255
>>1790244

I personally enjoy reading d&e's posts as he is one of the only people (anons included) who posts anything intelligent or literary related.

However, I wonder why he angers some anons so much...

PS: If I'm on here it's because I'm reading an actual book at the same time

>>1790264

Is that not what I have been saying? Subjectivity being relative to the subject, that is. Is this not what the definition of the word is as documented by a dictionary?

>>1790264
And, before someone gets the wrong idea, this is not effectively a dostoyevskian pants-shitter of the "if there is no x everything is y" form; this doesn't mean everything is "objective"

>>1790283
You mean these ideas are not mutually exclusive?

>>1790279
>Is that not what I have been saying?
>Subjectivity being relative to the subject, that is
>characteristic of the individual
>quality of the subject
>quality or qualities of the subject
>subjective, specific to the subject
None of these definitions are logically equivalent to "relative to the subject", and in all of those one can deconstruct the term 'subject' to signify nothing more than an arbitrary labelling of some thing. In this case, a cow having a black spot on its coat is 'subjective'. None of us think that is what subjectivity amounts to, and no lexical definition attempts to impart that. Lexical definitions are, in general, inadequate for the task of conceptual analysis because they are often circular, and directed towards capturing a term in its everyday use. But no-one here is interested in the term in its everyday use; we are interested in the philosophical concept of subjectivity.

>>1790303
also, inb4 this guy pulls a Behemoth and says WELL GEE WE ALL WERE CLEARLY NOT CONCERNED WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW WHAT YOU WERE SAYING GEEEZZZZZ PEDANTIC ASSHOLE

>>1790309

validity of argument notwithstanding you are kinda pedantic dude, you use a lot more words than necessary in every post

>>1790303

Then you must excuse my impropriety, as I use words only to invoke an established meaning. My understanding of subjectivity and its meaning was and is that it references a concept or perception specific to the subject being described.

In earlier posts I went to certain lengths to explain subjective view exists in relation to (certain) objective qualities. For example:

>>1790232

To say that subjective view exists in relation to objective qualities is to say that it is relative to (user) perception.

>>1790330
>as I use words only to invoke an established meaning
Fair enough, but that's absolutely useless in this thread because established everyday meaning is the very thing being called into question. Now that we've gotten that out of the way would you care to contribute something that doesn't tell us what we already know about how we use words in everyday circumstances?

I think D&E is afraid of old jimbo.

>>1790341

That being so, I fear I am in the rather embarrassing situation of having misinterpreted a significant portion of this thread. I wish to express my appreciation for your willingness to temporarily participate in this little digression. With that out of the way, I shall excuse myself for lunch.

>>1790343
> they are the same person

>>1790356

>>1790081
>Confuse normative needs and desires with needs and desires in general
Way to go.

>>1790401
How exactly am I doing that?

ITT: literature is as concrete as carpentry and music, containing none of the abstract nuances that invariably complicate the written word versus relatively simple concepts like music and carpentry

>this is what deep & edgy actually believed

thread debunked in a nutshell, but nobody will notice because this is the shitty forum called 4chan

>>1790405
>needs and desires are derived from ways of living
>implying only needs and desires derived from ideologies
That's not the only thing that wrong with the sentence.

>>1790410
>relatively simple concepts like music and carpentry
Neither are very simple, and require just as much study as the expert appreciation of literature. Your bourgeois elitism is showing. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate in any way how a work of fine literature is not just as suitably techically reducible in critical evaluation as a work of fine carpentry or music.

>>1790417
Where did I imply that?

>>1790431
>ways of living

>>1790428
I am a writer, classically trained musician, and former construction worker

I don't need to disprove your bullshit

I'll just sit back and drunkenly laugh at you trolling 4chan, a 20 something year old faggot who reminds me of my previous self

>>1790435
All ideologies are in some constitutive sense ways of living, but not all ways of living is ideology.

>>1790436
>I am a writer, classically trained musician, and former construction worker
Have you considered the possibility you're just not very good at any of these things (quite plausible given that you haven't devoted yourself to a singular pursuit)? I never said that even the most qualified people, nevermind piddling middlemen, aren't fuck-ups; it does happen.

>>1790439
I mostly write fiction and have been commercially successful in that pursuit; my music has been critically praised but it is not my passion

as for construction, it's uncreative toil for people who just want to go home and drink beer at the end of the day and who only contribute to the continuance of a broken system

I haven't considered that I'm shitty in these three things because I'm critically acclaimed in two and worked in the last for five years, they would have kicked me out of construction if I couldn't do my job

but this isn't about me, this is about your juvenile misconception that subjectivity isn't a very real concern

just because something required formal training, is commonly accepted as good, and took longer to create, doesn't mean is isn't a pile of shit compared to something pulled out of the ass of some random construction worker

the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove otherwise

>>1790442
>I mostly write fiction and have been commercially successful in that pursuit
not really interested in commerical success

>my music has been critically praised but it is not my passion
what does 'critically praised' mean?

>as for construction
I'm not talking about construction, I'm talking about carpentry and craftsmanship

>I'm critically acclaimed in two
What do you mean by 'critically acclaimed'?
Have you considered the possibility you've been wrongfully critically acclaimed?

>they would have kicked me out of construction if I couldn't do my job
But I'm not talking about construction, or your ability to do your job

>just because something required formal training, is commonly accepted as good, and took longer to create, doesn't mean is isn't a pile of shit compared to something pulled out of the ass of some random construction worker
I never said that it didn't

>the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove otherwise
have you been following the thread? like, at all?

>>1790437
Not all ideologies are what you mean by ideology. Anyway, ultimately 'needs and desires are derived from ways of living' is what the issue is. You've got too narrow a view of what needs and desires are.

>195 posts and 46 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
Really? Oh well, might as well fall for it as well

I take literature majors less seriously than scientific majors for several reasons:
1) Art is highly subjective. What interests one person may not interest another
2) There is no technical "Skill" to remedy this. You cannot technically justify the superiority of your opinion, even in the event of higher percentage support
3) It follows that English majors are arguing on the basis on opinion rather than fact, and therefore less credible than hard sciences

Granted, they may be taught the technical workings of writing, but this does not justify what is ultimately just their opinion. Your arguments are really just cloaking highly subjecive personal ideas behind the veneer of "scientific proof". If I have a toothache, I go to the doctor and get it fixed. If I want to know how I personally feel about a book, I trust my own opinion.

Checkmate /lit/

>>1790448
>Not all ideologies are what you mean by ideology
What do you think I mean by ideology?

>You've got too narrow a view of what needs and desires are.
I'd like you to give me a single example of a need or desire that is not derived from a way of living

>>1790449
>Art is highly subjective
First, subjectivity and objectivity is more or less irrelevant in coming to understand how we use the term 'art'. All we can really use a term like 'art' for is to refer to that set of human works we wish to exemplify or set above the rest, as accepted by the main. What other use could we have for such a term? It's a term used to facilitate communication of a subject; I say "hey dude lets talk about Art" and we will fairly surely have a general idea about what each other is talking about.

Now, with regard to subjectivity in art; this is best represented by the term 'taste'. Everyone has their own tastes which are subjective etc etc. The point is that this doesn't matter when we employ a term like 'art' because we don't use it to refer to subjective tastes, we use to to refer as above. Now, let's take my previous discussion and interpret it like the moron who misuses the term 'art' treats it:
"Dude let's talk about art"
"But art is subjective"
"Yeah but you know what more or less know what I mean when I raise the subject right?"
"sure"
and so discussion continues without a problem
Now, if someone considers something controversial part of that set, there still isn't a problem because all that needs to be done there is to see whether one needs to expand the set or not to suit whatever relevant need is required in that situation. Expand if you need to, contract if you need to.

>>1790449
>There is no technical "Skill" to remedy this
Good writing is just as much a skill as good carpentry, but good writing or carpentry is not simply a matter skill; it involves number of factors contributed by the individual towards masterful production; creativity, ingeniouity, etc

>You cannot technically justify the superiority of your opinion
Yes you can, according to the relative quality of a piece's constitution relative to others'.

>It follows that English majors are arguing on the basis on opinion rather than fact, and therefore less credible than hard sciences
There are no facts, there are only opinions, some better than others (science is the best and most readily apt at demonstrating this); so this is not an issue.

>>1790451
Many needs and desires are a response to a given situation that has no relation to a chosen way of life. A baby has no way of life when it is first born, but it has needs and desires.

It doesn't matter what you mean by ideology, since you only used it in response to another usage. All that matters is that it's not the one being talked about.

>>1790458
>A baby has no way of life when it is first born
Of course it does, you idiot, it is simply a highly basic way of living.

>It doesn't matter what you mean by ideology, since you only used it in response to another usage.
Of course it does, you're criticising me on my use of ideology, so tell me what you think I mean by ideology so I can tell you whether that's an appropriate criticism or not, or fuck off.

>>1790451
>Everyone has their own tastes which are subjective etc etc
lol, ignore this stuff or assume I'm using it to represent other peoples' viewpoints. I wrote it up around last december when I was still a little unsure of some stuff, but it's still pretty solid and that doesn't affect the central claim of it.

True Story.
Last year I took pictures of two pieces of shit, taken at different times, and each piece was placed on each on its own background and captured.
A while later, after appropriately developing and then framing these pictures, I took these pictures to my fellow Graduate Students of Art and asked them for criticism.
The responses, if categorized, fell mainly into 2 camps. There were the ones who responded by essentially saying 'I don't like either of these pictures, they are of pieces of shit.'
The other responders got into heated debates and started arguing about which picture was better. They would go back and forth trying to prove that one picture of shit was better than the other picture of shit by using clues such as the color of the shit and what it tells us about the relationship between man and nature, the consistency or texture of the shit and what it tells us about human within nature, and the presence (or lack thereof) of identifiable objects within the shit and how this can ground us and juxtapose the significant meaning of artifice against the insignificance of the rest.
The darker, more roughly textured, shit with corn kernels ended up winning out.

>>1790466
It's a shame those students didn't understand that a critical evaluation can only be worth as much at best as the object of critical evaluation, so they were wasting their time. I'm just happy that works of literature and art are much more valuable to society than pieces of shit.

>>1790461
>Of course it does
No it doesn't. And it's not criticism, stop being overly defensive.
>it is simply a highly basic way of living.
If I dislike broccoli, not eating broccoli is part of my 'way of life', correct?

D&E, you would get along with my friend Trevor and i.

we would all have some interesting conversations.

the idea behind having a critical community is, at least to some extent, to identify the features of literature as a toolset for living or interpreting, and to teach those tools or discuss their value (they may only be tools for enhancing aesthetic experience, if you don't buy postcolonialism or anything, but that still counts). this must necessarily involve the privileging of some texts over others, and THAT must necessarily involve attempted development of some kind of agreed-upon rubric of quality.

i think the source of some disagreement might be pedagogy. the academic environment basically prepare you to teach, and one tries to teach things that are useful in this way. this may not be a rubric of literary evaluation that the layperson is interested in at all, but they run the risk then of disagreeing with a whole field of people that are attempting to find and identify life- and perspective-enhancing literature.

in other words i am at least speculatively entertaining the idea of agreeing with you.

Trevor published a paper called "A Newton for Leaves of Grass", which sort of attacks the fallacious but unquestioned assumption (in his opinion) that science can never approach an objective understanding of art.

good times.

PLATO'S CRAFT ANALOGY
CONGRATULATIONS
I THINK WE'RE DONE HERE

>>1790478
>And it's not criticism
>tells me I don't know what I mean by ideology
>not criticism
Hey buddy, fuck you!

>If I dislike broccoli, not eating broccoli is part of my 'way of life', correct?
not necessarily, you may eat broccoli even though you dislike brocolli. Seriously dude I can tell you know fuck all about what you're talking about, I'd recommend you stop wasting your own time here because I'm just going to shoot down everything you say.

>>1790480
>which sort of attacks the fallacious but unquestioned assumption (in his opinion) that science can never approach an objective understanding of art
>lalala, that science of art wasn't a big element of modernism
It's not unquestioned, just known to be ridiculous.

>>1790473
But you see, my friend, that shit has profound value. Shit serves as fertilizer and allows you, and everyone, to receive nutritious value from the food that is cultivated and consumed.
This mostly applies to cow and bull shit but, as I say, shit is shit.
Shit is truly what makes the world go round.

>>1790489

good argument.

maybe you should read the paper first.

>>1790489

(mfw science advances)

(mfw modernists didn't have our advances in neuroscience)

(mfw the future will only bring more advances)

>>1790473
>It's a shame those students didn't understand that a critical evaluation can only be worth as much at best as the object of critical evaluation

But isn't the value of the object of critical evaluation /determined by/ critical evaluation?
So if you can convince people that the object evaluation is valuable you also subtlely inform the reader that your evaluation is important too. Which may suggest why critical evaluation tends to conjure value in things that have none-- like pictures of shit.

>>1790451
>"but art isn't just personal opinon, it's everyone's opinons" (long obstruficating post to appear correct while making shit up)

You're creating a definition on the spot to suit your own narrow agenda, and then pretending it represents everyone. If we consider something that we believe particularly beautiful, we call it "a work of art"- we do this ourselves and this is a personal process. Whereas art exhibitions and the like create their own ideas of what is "art" and what is not, individuals will always have their own opinions and interact individually to each work thereby crafting their own taste.

Therefore, you are incorrect. Let me repeat again, there is no justification for placing english major's opinions on a higher plane because in the end they are arguing for their own opinions just like anyone else. Opinion is a personal matter, it has no scientific justification.

Seeing as you are not thinking on a logically coherent or rational level, I will not respond to any more of your posts. 0/10

>>1790499
But its clear that shit does have value. Shit allows us to live through its use as fertilizer in both modernity and antiquity. This is not, as you say, conjuring value in an object that has none. It is an indisputable fact that shit has profound value.

the big dirt secret ITT: we experience enough objective intersubjectivity to sit on machines together using our eyes to look at screens while seeing the same text while communicating in english and caring about these devices we apparently all value called books

>>1790501
>>"but art isn't just personal opinon, it's everyone's opinons"
But that's not what I said

>You're creating a definition on the spot to suit your own narrow agenda
No I'm not, I'm demonstrating how the term 'art' functions in society rather than the misleading use individuals put it to

>If we consider something that we believe particularly beautiful, we call it "a work of art"- we do this ourselves and this is a personal process
This is a fundamentally misguided understanding of how language works. You inherited the word 'art', you did not come up with this word or its connotations, just as you inherited all of your language, because language is dialogic in nature, it is social; it doesn't function to represent individual meaning, it functions to represent social meaning (this is not to say there isn't some divisions in society as reflected by the conflict between centripetal and centrifugal forces in language).

>individuals will always have their own opinions and interact individually to each work thereby crafting their own taste.
They will, but they will never have their own language.

>>1790487
>Seriously dude I can tell you know fuck all about what you're talking about, I'd recommend you stop wasting your own time here because I'm just going to shoot down everything you say.
Your ignorance is showing. Hell, you're the one using obtuse terms like 'way of life', though if you try and back off too much with it you'll run into problems.
>not necessarily, you may eat broccoli even though you dislike brocolli
>spell broccoli correctly once, then fuck it up
Doesn't change that the ideal is to not eat broccoli. It is just as simple to put 'the avoidance of eating broccoli is a part of their way of life' if that makes it easier for you.

>Let me repeat again, there is no justification for placing english major's opinions on a higher plane because in the end they are arguing for their own opinions just like anyone else

ultimately it's all opinions, yes, but you're being obtuse if you think the opinion of someone who has spent years studying the field has no more 'value' than someone who read his first couple books yesterday.

>>1790517
>obtuse terms like 'way of life',
can you tell me exactly what is difficult to understand about 'the manner in which a person lives'

>Doesn't change that the ideal is to not eat broccoli. It is just as simple to put 'the avoidance of eating broccoli is a part of their way of life' if that makes it easier for you.
Whatever dude, an ideal, as a psychological process, is part of a way of life.

>>1790501
Seriously everyone, this guy is such a fucking retard

>If we consider something that we believe particularly beautiful, we call it "a work of art"- we do this ourselves and this is a personal process

It's like he thinks personal processes and the considerations that prompt them pop out of thin fucking air and aren't socially, culturally or historically conditioned or something! What a fucking clueless lunatic!

>>1790519
>>1790501

forgot to show I was responding to this guy

You are now aware that greentext is cheap, reductionist labeling and this reflexive mental habit is one of the primary traits of Borderline Personality Disorder.

>>1790523
Can you tell me how it's difficult to understand that the manner in which you live doesn't determine all of your desires and needs?

If the desire to not eat or avoid broccoli is a part of the 'way of life', then some desire first formed that part of the 'way of life'. The ur-desire is a desire of the subject, but was not formed by some 'way of life', because an ur-desire is necessary to form the 'way of life'. Concrete example for you: man sees someone choke to death on a piece of broccoli, man then desires to never eat broccoli. Happening to see such a death has nothing necessarily to do with a way of life.

>>1790541
>socially, culturally or historically
You are absolutely correct in pointing out the significance of these. It is because of this significance that it would be difficult to successfully argue that a work of art with, shit as the subject, has great value.
It is important to understand that when considered objectively, however, shit itself indeed does have profound value.
Your task is to mediate these two ideas.

>>1790564
>Happening to see such a death has nothing necessarily to do with a way of life.
Of course, because the man was not engaging in a manner of living before this, he simply popped into existence, much like your ur-desire which apparently precedes the subject and thus precedes itself. Until you can get the notion that a way of living is not necessarily active, in fact ultimately it is never active, please piss off.

>>1790457
>There are no facts, there are only opinions, some better than others (science is the best and most readily apt at demonstrating this); so this is not an issue.

D&E demonstrating ignorance of the term science.

>>1790579
you missed a great thread about dawkins that devolved into a number of really insightful posts about science a couple of days there BamesJond

deepandedgy will never take you seriously.png

>>1790578
It only precedes the subject if you think the way of living is necessary for their to BE a subject. And it's not. If you think it is, the term you're looking for is living, not way of living.

>>1790581
Somebody has an inferiority complex guys. He think I want him to take me seriously!

>>1790581
if you think you can be taken seriously while only hewing one line in the sand, you are pretty deluded.

there is no argument between you and bonds, so i don't see why you can't take him seriously.

>>1790581
Do you have an inferiority complex? Why do you think I want you to take me seriously?

>>1790583
>the way of living is necessary for their to BE a subject. And it's not.
Yes it is. The subject and subjectivity are products of a way of living (REMEMBER, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ACTIVE OR SINGULAR) humongously widespread in civilization. Again, please post some more so I can shoot you down some more.

>>1790578
>doesn't know there is concurrence between before and after

>>1790585
hey tell me what you think of how i talked about art a few posts up

>>1790541
it gets a b- i think. let's not take social conditioning and personal inspiration to be contradictory in actuality. they may be different analyses, but not different reality.

figure out the implication for yourself i need to sleep.

>>1790588
>CHICKEN!
>EGG!
The only other issue is: can unique occurrences be part of the way of life. So the one time in your life you wanted to eat broccoli, for example.

>>1790584
Inferior species of tripfag. D&E is a monarch, you are barely a baron.

>>1790598
shut up already, idiot

Are D&E and Stagoo involved in some "Who can out Asperger the other" contest?

>>1790601
You don't know, do you?

Interesting thread, d&e.

Tell me this though; if literature quality can be analysed in a purely objective way then why is there no mathematical equation for assessing this quality?

The dietitian and the carpenter rely upon mathematics, why not the literary critic?

I am not saying that the opinion of literary critics is not informed, but it still relys upon a significant amount of subjective interpretation, like psychiatry for example, which is often considered an art.

Perhaps one day we will have a formula to produce a masterpiece as you suppose, but we have not reached that point yet and perhaps our minds are simply too irrational as i'm sure a supported of the frankfurt institute would argue for such a firmly objective analysis to arise.

And probably by that time we will have stopped calling it literary criticism and start calling it 'neurology'.

>>1790622
Do I get to laugh or not?

>>1790622

neuroscience. exactly.

in the future, will artists have to be neuroscientists?

interesting questions.

>>1790623

you can laugh if you like, it would be nice if you told me why though.

>>1790623

only if you're a moron.

>>1790631
Depends if you are trolling.

/x/ has Aeris
/tv/ has Abatap
/a/ has ParkRanger
/lit/ has Deep&Edgy

Someone should make a list of the worst tripfags on 4chan. Anyone know any other morons from other boards?

>>1790644
Tinytrip on /fit/

Almost as bad as DerpNderpy.

>>1790648

/x/ has Aeris
/tv/ has Abatap
/a/ has ParkRanger
/lit/ has Deep&Edgy
/fit/ has Tinytrip

Anybody else?

>>1790644
I guess Yot C stopped posting on /a/?

I would say that Uzeeh is the worst on /fit/.

>>1790622
this is completely wrong in the other direction.

why are you kids trying to reduce everything and inflate everything else. is nature ie your own life not good enough

/n/ has guy with nine bikes

>>1790622
>The dietitian and the carpenter rely upon mathematics, why not the literary critic?
Because linguistics, probably what we are dealing with when we discuss mathematics but I'm a little rusty on both so I'm not too sure, all I can say is that there are different rules for both language-games, but we are still dealing with systematicity in both I should think. This whole approach I guess is embodied with structuralism and all those sorts of approaches, but it was sunk pretty badly with people like Bakhtin, who highlighted that you can't really have a synchronic analysis of language, and more recently Derrida; who rather helpfully pointed out that meaning is constituted by difference so all we get is more and more signifiers instead of an original signified or anything. Heaven forbid we have an arbitrary, practical cut-off point or an acceptable centre limiting the play of relations in a text relative to a progressive end; that would be too fucking oppressive and logocentric and we can't have that apparently.

I am not looking for a science of aesthetics or a science of literature.

>>1790652
patrickbateman on /fa/

>>1790655
>>1790637

Why don't you guys stop being faggots and critique me, so far all your replies have been useless. I'm sorry I misspelled some words English isn't my first language and I never read over my posts.

'A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring' -Wittgenstein

>>1790653

I don't find Yotsuba that bad of an user. He actually made a convincing defense, using those lists of anime aired since 1980 till today, of the fact that no particular element (moe, fanservice, harem...) has contributed to the worsening of the anime media.

>>1790663
alreayd critiqued you you just dont get it. go to school please and stop diddling like you know something.

>>1790663
>'A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring' -Wittgenstein

and if you can't feel my jab because you don't follow the argument, then why do i have to fight you. i seem like a cloud to you, but maybe you are in a fog?

>>1790622
>>1790622
>if literature quality can be analysed in a purely objective way then why is there no mathematical equation for assessing this quality?

Once, if ever, there is a mathematical equation that can fully encapsulate the entire human consciosness, including self awareness and the experience of qualia, then this will be possible. Till then this is not even remotely plausable as a retort.

i'm starting to like Deep&Edgy

>>1790675
Forgot my trip. Also don't forget that modelling the human brain with all it's functions may forever remain outside of the reach of human science.

>>1790678

oh hi Deep&Edgy

>>1790661
>>1790661

I agree with you on this point, but then you must admit that if language cannot be properly analysed synchronously and that you will never be able to truly determine the original signifier then you shouldn't call literary criticism objective in the same way you do engineering. It will never be crystalised in objectivity to nearly the same degree as engineering is.

That's why I've always felt that literary criticism has strong parallels with psychiatry which also will never be truly objectively analytical.

>>1790673

You are so egotistical it's unbelievable, sometimes I think you make vague statements purposely so that you can gloat over our inability to understand you. Delusional.

>>1790675

I never said it would be within our grasp anytime soon.

But until it is don't call it truly, materialistically objective.

>>1790675
>qualia

I don't usually consider occam's razor anything other than a bad scientists' means of saying "stop explaining things in ways I don't like", but when I do...

>>1790695
>I agree with you on this point, but then you must admit that if language cannot be properly analysed synchronously and that you will never be able to truly determine the original signifier then you shouldn't call literary criticism objective in the same way you do engineering. It will never be crystalised in objectivity to nearly the same degree as engineering is.
As I've said already TruCrime:StreetsofL.A., I have absolutely no interest in the analytically useless subject-object distinction, whether it be engineering or literature

Amazing. I checked lit early this morning, left, did a day's worth of errands and yard work, came back, and you've been in this thread the whole time. Do you even remember what the real world looks like, D&E? Have you been diagnosed recently? There's a whole litany of mental disorders that your symptoms could be indicating.

>>1790706
my car crashed in the mountains and this crazy lady is holding me against my will in her cottage to troll fags
shes gonna break my legs send help plz

>>1790712
lol

>>1790712
Its delusion due to low sugar content. Will soon pass. So don't worry. The lady is your mom and the cottage is her basement. Now sleep tight.

>>1790695
the problem with tryign to equate a representation of thought with represented is that the representation is itself a thought. so this is impossible

>>1790712
Reported for Stephen King.

>>1790732
What about when I'm representin the set? Am I thought?

>>1790742
you are already creating another level when you can hold the world in view.

>>1790712

>has nothing going on in his life other than /lit/

>refers to how he spends his days as "trolling fags"

You are thoroughly over-fucking-educated and under-fucking-motivated.

basically the idea is that when you see a tree, saying that "this is a tree", that entire this is a real fucking tree flat ontology is to be preserved if you represent that thought. so the correct representation is not idealism but reliabilism etc noninflationary description.

>>1790764
But if I don't big up my swag, haterz gon cap me. Reliabilism kills dawg.

>>1790762
>has nothing going on in his life other than /lit/
sorry buddy, you're wrong

>>1790794
you are here an awful lot, tho...

>>1790794
>implying you didn't spend 20 minutes trying to resist the urge to reply

>>1790798
>>1790799
It's been a revision month so I haven't been able to do a lot other than study or surf.

>>1790801
>It's been a revision month = more 4chan
Oh dear god...

>>1790853
where did this random tripfag come from?
you are an idiot and therefore a low-tier tripfag.
fuck off, we're full.

>>1790859
I already have a hater.

Yes and his name is Anonymous. To be fair, Anonymous will just group you in with the other low-tier tripfags from this board which isn't the same as saying all tripfags from this board and you will get attention by posting comments that are not beneficial to this board. Anonymous is used to your brand of tripfag on /lit/ and there are plenty of you already here. You are not special.

288 posts

>Mfw this thread

D&E, you keep it the fuck up.

>>1790864
>new tripfgags without anything interesting to contribute

LOOOOOOOOOOL

>>1790865
>>1790865
>implying there are good tripfags.
Funny you say that, because I seem to notice only 2 tripfags who don't make low quality posts.

the judgment of what good books are is subjective

this is because what is 'good' is subjective

this is because people are different and in competition with each other

d/e is a neoliberal hipster though so regressive ideas are his bread and butter and trying to get him to be better is futile, 'u' might as well just slap him with a rolled up copy of vice

i have people like him to thank, though, for disabusing me of the delusion that 'literary culture' is any less sad than any other internet clique so thank you d&e

>>1790875
Another idiotic post. You are on a roll, son. Keep up the good work.

>>1790883
Idiotic? I never claimed to be smart...

In >>1790865 you clearly implied that there were good tripfags.

Would you care to name them?

Didn't think so lol.

>>1790880
>this is because people are different and in competition with each other
Oh, so just like everyone else who has argued this, when you say 'subjective' really you just mean 'relative', and everyone already knows that what is good is relative. What's good to a clueless shit-eating retard is not going to be good to a master savant durrrrrrrrr amazing point bro.

>>1790893
>Idiotic? I never claimed to be smart....

And yet you subject us to your inanity anyway? Obviously no tripfag is actually interested in furthering the purpose of this board discussing Literature but at least some of them are moderately entertaining: D&E, Thick,Veiny.

But your kind, the useless, run-of-the-mill who toss on a tripcode for no other reason than to see promote your pseudo identity online to make up for your own vapid anonymity IRL are gut-wrenchingly awful additions (Read: subtractions) to this board.

>>1790911
>There are 3 good tripfags and 3 is all we need
lol

>>1790920
I listed two.


And for the record we don't need any.

>>1790911
>>1790880
>>1790865
>>1790859