/lit/ - Literature

The Possessed

>beauty is quantifiable/measurable
>beauty isn't relative/subjective
>socialism / equality compare to science
>constantly refers to "painting of Madonna" with no particular instance of such a painting mentioned.
>"man," "man's" etc.

What a very phallocentric troll thread of you. And if this isn't a troll thread, then its by a widdle high schooler who is pretentious beyond his years and knows diddly squat.

>"man cannot live without beauty"
hurr durr man cannot live without life either so hurr durr


also, write your own damn essay

sounds like sum shit tier philosopher to me.

>>2053470

Who says beauty has to be quantifiable and measurable?
who says it has to be objective?
Socialism and equality not compared to science, but lumped in with science as second rate compare to the thrive of beauty.

Have you no argument? Have you no thought?

>>2053477

sounds like you lack a contingent and executable rational retort

>>2053477
Holy fuck, first decent list I've seen on /lit/.

OP you are pumping yourself up with "big words" and it's kind of embarrassing.

Also, this is the /lit/ board. Take your copy pasta back to /sci/

>>2053477

>Dawkins in god tier
>Plato in shit tier
>Jung in shit tier

Fuck you boi

Sensible men will drop that painting for clean water.
Sensible men will drop that painting for their own realm.
Sensible men will drop that painting for a friend.

Sensible men determine what is important, you do not.

Also, 6/10.

>>2053481

>contingent
I don't think that word means what your think it means

(OP is high schooler)

>>2053492
Well it actually make sense when you compare something as sensible as extended-phenotypes and meme theory to retarded shit like the forms or universal consciousness.

>>2053494
Exactly what are existentialists? Like fags that can't deal with modern conception of reality or something?

>All of man's aims in history has been to search for beauty in its highest degree

Is that what war is?

>>2053494

Sensible man is driven by the attainment and/or creation of beauty.

While it is true man will face survival needs first, beyond this it is beauty that drives man beyond his/her basic needs as its will to exist and to thrive.


is not sexual copulation merely the end of the means of the pursuit of beauty?

is not the pursuit of wealth the mere action driven by the will to attain things with which one believes is beautiful?

What is man without beauty?

>>2053503
>Exactly what are existentialists? Like fags that can't deal with modern conception of reality or something?
I think so... never met or read one before though, so I couldn't tell you.

>>2053506

What is the drive for war? greed? land? power?

All this is placated by the drive to attain beauty in its most basic foundational form.

>>2053503

I'm just saying if you've ever read Dawkins, he clearly does not deserve to be so high (he is so fucking full of himself in every smarmy paragraph).

Also, Plato and Jung should be up-tiered at the very least. Plato did much more than ideal forms.

OP what painting in particular????

also, your claims are baseless assertions

>>2053513

achem.... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

>>2053513

not all art is to obtain beauty.
http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/gmaciunas-manifesto.html

which painting of the madonna you dimwit.

There is like a bazillion of them.
My fav's are velazquez and murillo. Velazquez has more of a tranquility and less of a ecstatic look. Also has less fat babies.

Compare: Velazquez

>>2053513
I doubt the guy getting shot at in the fox hole is thinking about attaining beauty in its highest form.

>>2053542
To murillo:

>>2053526

this has nothing to do with my topic, at all.

I'm sorry, but J Dilla is the beatification of man.

All of man's aims are to reproduce, just like any other living creature with DNA. You are driven to first and foremost replicate your DNA.

>>2053548
It proves that there are far more important things in people's lives than beauty. If you weren't literally retarded, you might no that.

>>2053540

I never stated all art is intended to attain beauty.

However, I would argue that this "non-art" is a drive for this artist to attain a beauty based on the irony of what it is.

Beauty is the sum of the imagination.
Science is the sum of the exact opposite,

A cannot contend with B.

>>2053556

You can argue any drive is a drive to attain beauty.
Also, any drive to attain beauty is actually a drive to inspire satisfaction.

>>2053557

My point that A is more important than B

>>2053510
My statement still stands. You are defining man without its input. Humanity didn't ask for what you thought of it, nor would it, does it, or should it put your thoughts on a pedestal because of your asinine conjectures about what makes up its driving factors.

Perhaps it is simply you who is obsessed with beauty, and so much so that you cannot help but project this inference onto others.

You should observe and talk to people more before you make conclusions about them.

El Greco does a pretty mean Madonna if you like more medivial/stylized paintings.

El Greco in general has pretty awesome paintings.

>Because the painting of Madonna is the mere full expression of man's determination of beatification.

>Man lives and works to seek what is beautiful.

>beatification.
>beautiful.

>What say you?

I say you should find out what words mean before you use them. by the way, your notion that beauty is the most important human endeavor, summed up by Keats as "beauty is truth; truth beauty - that is all you know in this world and all ye need to know", is lovely, but wrong. Our notion of beauty is merely a result of evolution, when we say something is beautiful or ugly, we say more about ourselves than we do about the thing.

We should sticky this. OP, I'm laughing.

>>2053573


wrong, I never said beauty was truth, I said beauty was the driving force of man's will and is more valuable than science, socialism, and equality put together.

As man can live without truth, but he cannot live without the drive of beauty.

>>2053584
You fail to understand. Clearly you're an idiot.

Here is another El Greco, again of the coronation.

Can you at least tell us what kind of Madonna we are talking about OP? you have a limited number of Madonna subject pics. Usually annunciation, visitation, nativity, assumption, coronation, or standard with child.

>>2053544


Those who start wars, base it, ultimately on the obtainment of that in which they believe is beautiful

Those who fight wars, base it, ultimately to survive to live on a world they believe is beautiful enough not to face death.

>>2053584

I'm living without the drive of beauty.

>>2053587


Is my failure to understand based on my inability to grasp your argument or the failure of you to form one?

>>2053566
Right, I'm saying one is not more important than the other because they serve different functions. I would say that beauty is the birth of civilization and imagination is the root of science, but I don't think you can maintain one without the other.

>>2053592


The very act of living is the the drive of beauty itself.

you to desire to live because you want to experience the beauty of life.

No, I desire to experience the satisfaction of life. Beauty is just one of those satisfactions.

Now suck my dick (and if you didn't get that, that is a *satisfaction* -- unless, of course, you believe the image of you fellating me is beautiful). Checkmate.

Keen the definition of contend first you tard...

>>2053593

Neither. Your failure to understand is based on your cognitive limitations. That you don't understand my argument is a result, not a cause. You dipshit.

I quoted Keats because he was expressing a similar sentiment to yourself (albeit in a more meritorious way). I wasn't trying to suggest that you think beauty is truth. I was trying to suggest that you, like Keats, think that beauty and truth are objective concepts that we can "strive towards."

If our notion of beauty is based on evolution (and the evidence is compelling that this is so), then beauty is a subjective concept that comes from 'man' and as such, the notion of 'man' striving towards it is absurd. Even worse, if our concept of beauty is a result of evolution, then it isn't even a subjective concept that is an ends unto itself. At best it merely provides selection advantages; at worst it is a spandrel.

My main point however, was that you don't know what 'beatification' means. Reading down the thread, it would seem you don't know what most of the words you employ mean.

>Man lives and works to seek what is beautiful. All of man's aims in history has been to search for beauty in its highest degree. Even the act of modern Science started from the fascination and the determination to attain beauty.
Citations needed.

so is the retarded OP going to admit he meant "mona lisa" when he blurted out "Madonna"

(Murillo again)

>>2053610
>I quoted Keats because he was expressing a similar sentiment to yourself (albeit in a more meritorious way). I wasn't trying to suggest that you think beauty is truth. I was trying to suggest that you, like Keats, think that beauty and truth are objective concepts that we can "strive towards."

I never stated anything about "Truth" as objective, neither of which of beauty.

I contend that beauty being objective or subjective isn't important; what is is the drive to it that affects man.

What you and another may find beauty in different things, but the my point was based on the drive toward beauty (whatever it may be) is the value.

>If our notion of beauty is based on evolution (and the evidence is compelling that this is so), then beauty is a subjective concept that comes from 'man' and as such, the notion of 'man' striving towards it is absurd.

Absurd? I think not. Striving to something subjective is normal.

>>2053617

This is why I was laughing when I first read the OP.

OP here, this is the painting I was talking about. And no, I did not obfuscate it with the mona liza.

>>2053629
Lol please tell me this is a joke.

Also, that is not what obfuscate means.

>>2053629

>>2053626

I'm not going to continue to argue with you if you can't do me the decency of writing cogent sentences.

Once again, you were selective about what parts of my argument you chose to address.

>Even worse, if our concept of beauty is a result of evolution, then it isn't even a subjective concept that is an ends unto itself. At best it merely provides selection advantages; at worst it is a spandrel.

Now, allow me to clarify. If we have a concept of beauty because it provides an evolutionary advantage (or [as is more likely] because it is a spandrel) then beauty CAN'T be the 'drive.' The 'drive' is genetic proliferation and beauty is at best one of many tools in the evolutionary toolbox. Our fear of death and pain, and our sexual drivers are far more powerful explanations of human behavior than beauty is.

To put it differently, just in case you are still floundering, you are trying to establish beauty as the primary drive; the ultimate cause. I am saying that if beauty is an evolutionary adaptation it CANNOT be the primary drive. By definition.

>If our notion of beauty is based on evolution (and the evidence is compelling that this is so), then beauty is a subjective concept that comes from 'man' and as such, the notion of 'man' striving towards it is absurd.

>Absurd? I think not. Striving to something subjective is normal.

This is pure rubbish on analysis. If beauty is an objective concept (like Plato's forms) then it makes sense to talk about the human " search for beauty in its highest degree." Your opening argument implies objectivity because it IN YOUR WORDS states beauty has a 'highest degree.'

If beauty is subjective, then you don't strive for it, there is no drive towards it, because you decide what it is. You already have the concept in the most complete form possible. You might strive for things that embody this concept, but you don't strive for beauty qua beauty.

>>2053655

forgot trip

I say the way you write isn't beautiful. Too bad.

>Our fear of death and pain, and our sexual drivers are far more powerful explanations of human behavior than beauty is.

2 points of contention:

1. if beauty is simply the tool of the will to live, wouldn't that support my original argument that beauty is more valuable than science, socialism, and equality?

2. you equate that fear of death and sex are the only forms of human activity and drive, how do you explain the millions of other human activities that are not related to sex or fear of death?

art? attainment of wealth? as just 2 examples.

>I am saying that if beauty is an evolutionary adaptation it CANNOT be the primary drive. By definition.

this is based on your argument that sex and fear of death is the primary drive which is insufficient explanation as stated earlier.

>This is pure rubbish on analysis. If beauty is an objective concept (like Plato's forms) then it makes sense to talk about the human " search for beauty in its highest degree." Your opening argument implies objectivity because it IN YOUR WORDS states beauty has a 'highest degree.'

If your argument is that beauty is merely a tool of the will to live, doesn't that prove my argument that beauty is more important than science, socialism, and equality because one can live without the latter and not the former?

>>2053682

Saying you cannot live without a quality such as beauty, is like saying you cannot live without health. Also, why do you have such a hard-on (or assume others do) for socialism. It's not even that important. Neither is equality.

>>2053714

Not everything beautiful is considered healthy.

explain that conundrum

>>2053682

I'm not whoever you are arguing with but....


>1. if beauty is simply the tool of the will to live, wouldn't that support my original argument that beauty is more valuable than science, socialism, and equality?

Um, no because science socialism and equality are also tools to live.

>2. you equate that fear of death and sex are the only forms of human activity and drive, how do you explain the millions of other human activities that are not related to sex or fear of death?
art? attainment of wealth? as just 2 examples.

art is related to sex (hello, remember Madonna?) and the fear of death (i.e. the drive to create works that last longer than their creator)

same with wealth (money -> power -> sex + longer life)

>>2053682

>1. if beauty is simply the tool of the will to live, wouldn't that support my original argument that beauty is more valuable than science, socialism, and equality?

Only if you accept that 'value' means 'what is most genetically advantageous.' Genes are self serving, but that doesn't mean we have to be gene serving. Science is valuable because it increases our quality of life. As for socialism and equality, I'm not going to argue that they are more or less valuable than beauty, value is subjective, but I will point out that just as beauty has a genetic basis, equality (at least in-group) probably does also.

> you equate that fear of death and sex are the only forms of human activity and drive

I didn't do this. You're the one that is dogmatically asserting one central driver for human action. I'm denying this, and I cited two potentially greater drivers. I never said these were the ONLY drivers. Nor did I 'equate' anything.

>this is based on your argument that sex and fear of death is the primary drive which is insufficient explanation...

I don't know where you got this from. The argument is ACTUALLY based on the fact that our concept of beauty is derived from evolution. This means it can't be a primary drive (just like death and sex aren't primary drives) because they arise out of the genetic drive.

>>2053725

What is something beautiful that isn't healthy? If it is beautiful than it is salutary (i.e. healthy). As said already, beauty is a subset of healthiness.

Now, not everything healthy is considered beautiful. Explain THAT conundrum.

>>2053730


>If your argument is that beauty is merely a tool of the will to live, doesn't that prove my argument that beauty is more important than science, socialism, and equality because one can live without the latter and not the former?

This had nothing to do with my green text (which was pointing out that you imply objectivity). You seem to have changed your argument to a weaker and more defensible form. What is your basis (in argument or observation) for the contention that one cannot live without beauty? I'll give you my answer. One cannot live without a concept of beauty because we have an innate module for it via genes. But you have it the wrong way round. We don't need beauty to exist; beauty needs US to exist.

tl;dr fuck you are stupid; just give up.

OP everything you've said has been refuted.

>>2053725

>not everything considered healthy is beautiful. Explain that conundrum.

>>2053726

No, beauty was strictly stated by the poster as a tool of how we live and keep living.

you don't need science, equality, and socialism to live as humans have been living for a long time without these things.

>>2053746

Humans were probably living without notions of 'beauty' for a long time too. Besides, it is secondary. This thread is dildos.

>>2053730
>Only if you accept that 'value' means 'what is most genetically advantageous.'

part of that "genetically advantageous" argument cited before relied heavily on the desire to live.

>Genes are self serving, but that doesn't mean we have to be gene serving.

Based on your argument earlier, the will to live is gene serving. Which only supports my argument further that beauty is more valuable because "man cannot live without beauty"

>Science is valuable because it increases our quality of life.

it can increase quality of life but it isn't Needed to have life. Based upon your own argument that beauty is simply is the will of man to live based on genes you must logically agree with my argument as you have done nothing but give stronger evidence to support it.
>I don't know where you got this from. The argument is ACTUALLY based on the fact that our concept of beauty is derived from evolution. This means it can't be a primary drive (just like death and sex aren't primary drives) because they arise out of the genetic drive.

You've failed to answer the question, regardless of what the primary drive is. Beauty as it is used for many reasons (art for example) are not explained by evolutionary necessity as you so much make it out to.

what are the evolutionary advantages of creation of art?

the process of perfection in meandering activities?

>>2053731


Drawing a picture or perfecting the art of playing a violin isn't necessarily healthy, dare say neutral.

>>2053731

There was no stipulation of "concept of beauty" just that "beauty" exists in my argument.

You have already accepted that "Beauty" is a tool of man to live by genetic fashion. Based on my argument of "attaining beauty is more important than Science, socialism, and equality all together BECAUSE man cannot live without beauty but they can live without science, socialism and equality."

You have given much evidence to support the argument.

>>2053759

Jesus Christ kid, you've misinterpreted everything I've said. Arguing with fools eh?

I'm not going to painstakingly point out where you've gone wrong for a third time. Clearly my prior efforts are wasted on you. I will deal however, with your contention that everything I have said furthers your argument.

Saying a concept of beauty is genetically useful is not the same as saying "man cannot live without it." Hearing has a genetic advantage, but you can live without it. Many species have no notion of beauty, yet flourish. Within our specific niche, beauty might provide a competitive advantage; but it isn't necessary for survival.

Further, as I have twice said, it is more likely beauty is a spandrel. That is, a useless side effect of something that has genetic survival value.

>what are the evolutionary advantages of creation of art?

>what are the evolutionary advantages of a peacock's tail?

One of the problems with this argument is that you have asserted something as if it was an axiom, when it is not. Address this now:

What is your evidence that man can't live without beauty?

Why do you think that 'important' or 'valuable' are synonyms of 'we need it to survive?"

_________________________________________
I think this is a good time to invite the other participants of this thread to join me in a chuckle at OP's initial assertion that he was going to provide us with a 'challenge.'

given up op? or just slow?

I read like half the thread and realized that when OP says "beauty" he means "what someone really, really wants." The logical system he set up (at least until I stopped reading halfway through) is completely consistent and therefore of no value or consequence. learn2wittgenstein

>>2053788
>Saying a concept of beauty is genetically useful is not the same as saying "man cannot live without it."

You are wrong, evolution pushes to things that are genetically useful that those that are not

If the desire of beauty is genetically useful especially if such a tool has been integrated into the species for such a long time it would be disadvantageous as a condition of living to not have it.

in otherwords man cannot live without this tool (the desire of beauty)
>Hearing has a genetic advantage, but you can live without it.

Depends on the environment, if one were out in the wilderness with predators, hearing would be a necessity.

The desire of beauty as integrated with sex and the desire to live would be much more necessary than hearing in this case

>Many species have no notion of beauty, yet flourish.


One doesn't need to know of something to flourish with it.

Since you made an argument that "Beauty" is a tool of genetic basis, it stipulates that this just isn't a conceptual thing but a physical force that affects the physical world.
>Further, as I have twice said, it is more likely beauty is a spandrel. That is, a useless side effect of something that has genetic survival value.

Side effect? you are back tracking, you stated it was a useful tool for survival.

>what are the evolutionary advantages of creation of art?

>what are the evolutionary advantages of a peacock's tail?

One of the problems with this argument is that you have asserted something as if it was an axiom, when it is not. Address this now:

>What is your evidence that man can't live without beauty?

Beauty is something we desire. desire is the driving force of man's existence.

>>2053830

Is there more coming OP? Or should I proceed directly to the part where I intellectually emasculate you?

>>2053788


I propose that to live is in the will, nay, the desire to hold onto that with which we desire and deem the most beautiful. The experience of life.
>Saying a concept of beauty is genetically useful is not the same as saying "man cannot live without it."

You are wrong, evolution pushes to things that are genetically useful that those that are not

If the desire of beauty is genetically useful especially if such a tool has been integrated into the species for such a long time it would be disadvantageous as a condition of living to not have it.

in otherwords man cannot live without this tool (the desire of beauty)
>Hearing has a genetic advantage, but you can live without it.

Depends on the environment, if one were out in the wilderness with predators, hearing would be a necessity.

The desire of beauty as integrated with sex and the desire to live would be much more necessary than hearing in this case

>Many species have no notion of beauty, yet flourish.


One doesn't need to know of something to flourish with it.

Since you made an argument that "Beauty" is a tool of genetic basis, it stipulates that this just isn't a conceptual thing but a physical force that affects the physical world.
>Further, as I have twice said, it is more likely beauty is a spandrel. That is, a useless side effect of something that has genetic survival value.

Side effect? you are back tracking, you stated it was a useful tool for survival.

>what are the evolutionary advantages of creation of art?

>what are the evolutionary advantages of a peacock's tail?

One of the problems with this argument is that you have asserted something as if it was an axiom, when it is not. Address this now:

>What is your evidence that man can't live without beauty?

Beauty is something we desire. desire is the driving force of man's existence.
>>2053830

>>2053830
>Beauty is something we desire. desire is the driving force of man's existence.
Donuts are something we desire. Desire is the driving force of man's existence. Therefore, man can't live without donuts.
Seems legit to me

>>2053842
The universe is shaped like a doughnut, you know.

>>2053842

let me rephrase it:

"Beauty is what we attribute to something we desire. Desire is the driving force of man's existence. Therefore, man can't live without Beauty"

>>2053850
see
>>2053828

>>2053849
The mind is a doughnut

>>2053850

Your failure to grasp basic logic is comical as hell. Are you 12?

>"Beauty is what we attribute to something we desire."

I desire money but I don't think money is beautiful. Problem?

I desire food but I don't think food is beautiful. Problem?

I'm just playing around now though. I can't argue with you on my level after your last riposte.

>>2053853

Does this mean I win?

For those who want to know. I didn't come up with this myself.

This comes from a character called Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky from the novel The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

>>2053857

Beauty (also called prettiness, loveliness or comeliness) is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction


Is not one satisfied by attaining food if one truly desires it?

the same with money?

check mate

>>2053862
I don't know. You win if you thought OP was nonsensical and more than a little vacuous.

>>2053862

>Does this mean I win?

Nope.

I don't think you understood Dostoevsky at all and, frankly, I find it repugnant that you are trying to link you illogical spiel to him.

You are full of shit. Also, nothing has any importance. Thus say I.

>>2053850
If this is your definition of beauty, in what sense is any painting a 'full expression' of it?

>>2053874

This was not His argument but an argument a character in this book made.


learn2read

>>2053874

Still no retort I see... must be slow.. or you give in?


Beauty (also called prettiness, loveliness or comeliness) is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction


Is not one satisfied by attaining food if one truly desires it?

the same with money?

check mate

>>2053868

>look up your definition of beauty
> Wikipedia article
>sentence followed by "[citation needed]"

nice.

Checkmate my ass. You were doing so poorly, it was so obvious you didn't know how to play chess, that I've long since put the board back on the shelf. We're playing intellectual tiddlywinks now.

>>2053887
Okay.
Under your definition:
Beauty = what a person wants.
Your main argument consists of trying to prove that people want what people want in such a circular, obfuscated, and, quite frankly, dunder-headed manner that it takes some serious dissection to figure out that you, sir, are apparently a master-class troll.

>>2053885

I didn't mean Dostoevsky endorsed the argument. I mean, even if he put it in the mouth of a character, that he created it. And I don't think OP understood it.

>>2053887

Ohhhh, you repeated yourself. That must make you right. I've already advanced sufficient reasons for why you are wrong. You have failed to understand them.

>>2053889

another definition

beau·ty
   /ˈbyuti/ Show Spelled[byoo-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1.
the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beauty


I await your retort

>>2053894
>If this is your definition of beauty, in what sense is any painting a 'full expression' of it?
(Especially compared to the whole of 'science', which can go much further than any one painting in providing pleasure or satisfaction, no?)

>>2053907
In fact, to go on from this point...

>the painting of Madonna is more important and has more value than either Science, socialism, and equality all together
>to restate my point, attaining beauty is more important than Science, socialism, and equality all together

...the second is not a restatement but an entirely different point.