[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 408 KB, 1000x871, 1645147895493.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20214752 No.20214752 [Reply] [Original]

>Nabokov: ...But even in a better sense of “science”—as the study of visible and palpable nature, or the poetry of pure mathematics and pure philosophy—the situation remains as hopeless as ever. We shall never know the origin of life, or the meaning of life, or the nature of space and time, or the nature of nature, or the nature of thought.
>Interviewer: Man’s understanding of these mysteries is embodied in his concept of a Divine Being. As a final question, do you believe in God?
>Nabokov: To be quite candid—and what I am going to say now is something I never said before, and I hope it provokes a salutary little chill: I know more than I can express in words, and the little I can express would not have been expressed, had I not known more.
What did he mean by this?

>> No.20214771

>>20214752
Of those things which we cannot speak clearly we should not speak at all.

>> No.20214815

>>20214752
He's right. Human brain is like only 1% genetically different than a monkey's. The smartest monkeys can barely learn sign language. So it is completely arrogant for us to assume that with our brains that have barely a 1% advantage over a monkey's, could ever grasp the complexities of god's creation.

>> No.20214869

>>20214752
>I know more than I can express in words, and the little I can express would not have been expressed, had I not known more.
Sounds like he just ripped of Wittgenstein :
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

>> No.20214873

>>20214752
Of course this psued is too pussy to provide anything of substance. What do you expect out of an infant man incapable of taking care of his earthly needs?

>> No.20215005

>>20214873
>Died wealthy

>> No.20215065
File: 445 KB, 1920x1200, 616513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20215065

>>20214752
>We shall never know the origin of life, or the meaning of life

Why do statements like this always remind me of a crying child demanding the world explain itself to him. Everyone keeps whining like they need God to visit them not only personally but in a specific form. If we dropped these pretenses we could immediately begin to have a relationship to the divine, but instead we demand the nature of creation itself conform to our standards.

>> No.20215087

>>20215065
Blame the interviewer for asking dumb questions.

>> No.20215952

>>20215005
>refused to lift a finger to help his mo- sorry "wife" do anything domestic. An eternal infant.

>> No.20216387

>>20214752
Because he probably thought those questions were stupid. Ever heard of his list of terms he despised, one of them was "the moment of truth". I think the "meaning of life" is a similarly vapid phrase. Maybe he couldn't express in words why it was so vapid. The question isn't even worth asking despite the social capital which has been invested in these platitudes.
"the nature of nature" what does that even mean? I suspect it was smug old Vlad taking a dig at pseuds, the people who would worship at the alter of Freud or Marx.
>>20214771
>>20214869
This... Early Wittgenstein dismissed discussion of metaphysics, but instead only 'speak' of the natural sciences.
>>20214815
Retard take. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, that 1% of genetic difference is of outsized importance in the same way that the marginal genetic difference between monkeys and less complex organisms is of outsized importance. As you ascend the chain of being, the differences become more and more important because of compounding effects of complexity.
> over a monkey's, could ever grasp the complexities of god's creation.
Fuck you and your crab bucket. Genius is often in the simple, you're just a retard, God's creation is probably elaborately simple and beautiful

>> No.20216483

He's talking about Kant's noumenal world, which he believed touched him during moments of inspiration, and moments of sublime beauty. (An experience he knew the feeling of, but could not put into words.)

The closest thing an atheist will have to sensing the beyond.

This is what Vera Nabokov meant when she said the clue to his work was in his metaphysics.

>> No.20216508
File: 170 KB, 750x1034, Blind_men_and_elephant4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20216508

>>20214752
This is solved by doxa. No individual can see the whole for what it is because it's too large. It takes a group to combine their insight and figure it out.

>> No.20217943

>>20214752
He intervenes in every story he wrote as a god like character, because he is the god of the story. Similarly he might have thought that god and him had an author character relationship. I know he was interested in visions of the future in dreams so maybe he had clues like that that made him suspect something

>> No.20218152

>>20216387
>that 1% of genetic difference is of outsized importance
Yes clearly since we have accomplished much more than monkeys. Yet it's also completely arrogant to assume that 1% is enough to understand the universe itself when a creature a single step lower could barely communicate.
> Genius is often in the simple
Retard. It's only simple ONCE you understand. That is it will only be simple if we have the intelligence to grasp it. And we have no reason to assume we do.

>> No.20218178

>>20216483
Nabokova. She's a woman, after all.

>> No.20219162

>>20218178
TIL