/lit/ - Literature

Love of Wisdom
Any written work
Written work that isnt in prose, uses some form of meter
Something aesthetically pleasing, overwhelming
Man taking something inanimate and giving it something human

Philosophy- Do
Literature- your
Poetry- own
Beauty- homework
Art- cunt

Philosophy - (noun) the little smudge of poop on the end of your dick after you've just been on the giving end of anal sex.

Literature - (noun) the feeling one derives when they shove a Q-tip too far into their ear canal.

Poetry - (noun) the degrading things you have to do when you're short on rent and have a mere day or two to make up the difference.

Beauty - (noun) the shape of a pentagram cut in to eighths.

Art - (noun) A middle-aged male of some import. See Garfunkel and Linkletter.

Conclusion: lit spends its time constantly discussing terms it cant even define satisfactorily.

You're all pulling all your posts on this site out of your ass aint ya?

Philosophy- Oh behave!
Literature-Sake it to me baby!
Poetry-Get in my belly!
Beauty-That ain't no woman! That's a man, man!
Art-Judo chop!

Philosophy- Thinkan'
Literature- Writan'
Poetry- Swoonan'
Beauty- Bonan'
Art- Drawran'

Philosophy- Master Splinter
Literature- Donatello
Poetry- Leonardo
Beauty- Raphael
Art- Michaelangelo

Tripfags are cancer and this thread is sufficient proof of that.

>>2179020

OH GOD SOMEONE ASKED US TO DEFINE THE TERMS WE USE AND WHAT THEY MEAN TO US

HOW TERRIBLE HOW AWFUL OH GOD!

WE'RE BEING CALLED ON OUR BULLSHIT AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OH GOD

keep it classy /lit/

>>2179025
Gosh. It's like you already had these responses pretyped before the thread began. That's not disingenuous at all.

why don't you define "thing" for us op, since i can't understand your first sentence until you define all your terms. i guess you better also define "define" while you're at it, and why stop there? you'll need to define "good" before i can respond to your final request, and of course your definitions are going to contain words too, so you better define those too as you go along.

what a miserable and embarrassing thread.

>>2179032

speaking of disingenuous, constantly using words you cant define.

Arguing about if certain things are 'art' when you cant define what art is.

Arguing over if a book is good or what books are better when there is no accepted metric for making such judgments

this entire fucking board should be re named

/opinionsofcommunitycollegedropouts/

>>2179053

lol you mad bro.

sorry, i just had to do it. This is the board of baseless opinion, pointless wankery, and constant arguments about amorphous terms

>>2179059

don't stay on a board you hate it's bad for you. maybe go for a walk outside? eat some fresh fruit?

>>2179054

Look at this Asperger's piece of shit, lol.

>>2179059

Sorry, I still can't understand you. Can you please define your terms first? "baseless"? "about"?

If not I guess I'll be forced to conclude that you're being "disingenuous" (whatever that means; could you define that too please?)

>>2179054
>>2179059

Yeah, man. Most of us weren't even part of your precious "is vidya art?" thread. We don't care that much about semantic debates about stupid shit like "oh, god, is pooping art? Can I shit artistically?" We just don't care.

There's no reason why you should make a thread in a furious rage and conclude (quite dumbly) that /lit/ is full of people who don't know what they're talking about.

/lit/ is more full of people who don't care. As is the whole internet. As is the whole world.

Philosophy - phenomenology (isnt satisfied with materialism)
Literature - description (prose emulates nature)
Poetry - reverse description (nature shapes words)
Beauty - proportions
Art - conversation with the unobserved

>>2179059

Also, I'm going to need to know what your metric is for deciding whether an opinion is baseless, a wankery is pointless, and an argument is about amorphous terms. I'm sure you're busy, but I'd appreciate it.

>>2179072

>forced to conclude that you're being "disingenuous" (whatever that means; could you define that too please?)

I lol'd.

>>2179077

>Yeah, man. Most of us weren't even part of your precious "is vidya art?" thread.

What? WTf is wrong with you. I post in a thread that i didnt start then suddenly its my thread?. my precious thread?

>There's no reason why you should make a thread in a furious rage

sounds like you're projecting your furious rage onto me.

>"/lit/ is full of people who don't know what they're talking about."

I'm glad we agree on that point!

The terms I defined, with the exception perhaps of philosophy, have no definitions.

What do they mean? Whatever the fuck you want them to mean. How do you judge their value? However you want.

I made this thread when i saw the arguments in the thread about the most superior art form. There is no answer. I hope that has been made clear.

OP, you're under a basic misapprehension about social behavior - probably because of the vidya. People are not interested in answering boneheaded questions that are only being asked as a prelude to a rant. Read books about vertebrates. Shun the vidya.

>>2179086

>The terms I defined, with the exception perhaps of philosophy

*The terms I *listed* with the exception perhaps of philosophy

>>2179086

> What do they mean? Whatever the fuck you want them to mean. How do you judge their value? However you want.

You are wrong, faggot.

>>2179086

>What do they mean? Whatever the fuck you want them to mean.

Cool. I'm going to use 'art' to mean rain from now on. So when I say "It's arting outside" I'm sure everyone will be on board with that. And I'll use 'beauty' instead of 'door'. I'll yell "Close the damn beauty!" next time my lazy roommates leave it open.

Words only mean what you want them to mean if nobody is interested in talking with you. As soon as you want to have a conversation, you need some agreed premises. One of our agreed premises here is that Deist is a massive faggot.

>>2179094

Well, i mean, they're descriptive terms.

So you could say the rain outside IS art.

and the door is beautiful.

when i said 'define art' i more meant, provide a list of rules and requirements that something would have to meet to be acceptably described as a work of art.

its just based on opinion

>>2179105

What do you mean by 'opinion'

>>2179101

>call people on their bullshit
>be hated

Thats fine man. Crucify me. But i warn you, strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

>>2179105

No, you see, this won't work, and here's why.

1: You're using a definition of art in order to say 'rain is art', so what's art?

2: What is 'beautiful' - without using any existing component of its accepted definition, what is it?

3: You clearly had no intention of listening to anyone's suggested 'rules and requirements', you just wanted to excuse your own laziness of mind and coarseness of perception.

4: Murder yourself, faggot.

>>2179113

>You clearly had no intention of listening to anyone's suggested 'rules and requirements', you just wanted to excuse your own laziness of mind and coarseness of perception.


This is a baseless assumption.

>laziness of mind

So you're not lazy, what are those requirements for art again?

>You're using a definition of art in order to say 'rain is art', so what's art?

Exactly! so what is art? the term has no meaning.

Fuck this place. It's lousy with tryhard tripfags who fall ass-over-tea-kettle trying to prove themselves.

>>2179107

No you won't, you'll be another fat vidya-addict dead of heart failure, surrounded by Mountain Dew bottles of piss and stinking of maize-based snacks and dried semen. I don't crucify you, I have you in derision, now make like everyone you've ever loved, and leave.

>>2179118

No, it's not a baseless assumption. You haven't answered my questions.

You have a naive conception of how language and communication work OP. It's perfectly normal for people to use words without knowing exactly how to define them. I doubt I could give non-circular definitions for most of the words I use, but that doesn't mean I don't understand them or can't reason competently in terms of them. The same is true of everyone.

>>2179120

>tryhard

SO FUCKING HIPSTER

>>2179123

I asked my questions first. See:

>>2179001

>>2179125

Those aren't questions, they're jumping-off points for your petulant ranting. Answer my questions.

>>2179124

This thread was made in the context of there being a thread with 140 replies about what is the most superior artform and if video games are art.

There are constant arguments about which book is 'better' or who is a 'better' writer or if something is 'good'

I just wanted to point out, its all opinion and bullshit

>>2179127

>Those aren't questions, they're jumping-off points for your petulant ranting. Answer my questions.

No, they're questions.

Where do you see 'petulant ranting?'

There is none. idiot

Amusing how Deist's porn folder is entirely composed of pics where the girl looks to camera. That's how little imagination he has.

>>2179137

>>2179129
When putting your name and tripcode into a search engine one can see that you rant and prefer the point of view that "what others believe is bullshit, because it's only opinions to begin with, hence I am justified to call everything to be bullshit".

I have been here for around twenty minutes and you are depressingly annoying a person.

>>2179128

Nobody is interested in your input, imbecile.


>>2179129

Petulant ranting is your raison d'etre.

>>2179137

>When putting your name and tripcode into a search engine

Someone is trying too hard.

>"what others believe is bullshit, because it's only opinions to begin with, hence I am justified to call everything to be bullshit".

>others

What EVERYONE believes is bullshit.

>>2179128

Maybe part of the fun in discussing the nature of art is that it's not obvious from the outset what art really consists in and people enjoy trying to figure it out as they go. Ambiguity and uncertainty can be important in their own way. They are not always signs that a domain of discourse is subjective or totally baseless, just that its standards aren't as clear, rigid and precise as those in other domains.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"POINTLESS SEMANTICS AND GRUMBLINGS OVER DEFINITIONS"

HAHAHAHAHAAH

OH GOD, OP. SO MUCH FAGGOT.

i wanna see deep&Edgy argue with this guy, I imagine it'd be like an endless feedback loop

>>2179143

No, it isn't, now please fuck off, I haven't re-installed 4chan filter yet.

>>2179143
No, what others believe is bullshit because you cling to that notion instead of questioning it because to say that everything is bullshit is an absolute with no margin for error or revision.

Were you to believe that everyone's opinion is bullshit then that would make you question your own opinion on this instead of telling others about it.

I looked for your tripcode and you seem to have the idea that you are superior to other people, on every board.
Maybe you are a nice guy in person but that doesn't show.

>>2179151

That could be captioned 'THIS IS WHAT GAMERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE'.

>>2179161

i dont believe that at all. I'm also not a 'gamer'

>>2179158

>seem to have the idea that you are superior to other people, on every board.

I am.

>>2179163

Shit-tier. Go away.

This guy is like an uneducated D+E.

This board doesn't even need an educated D+E.

>>2179163
Then there is no point in trying to prove it.
It's as if conversations like these are IQ tests:
the folks creating and evaluating the tests can only test and evaluate folks who are less or equally intelligent as the evaluators.
Since you are superior, we have no frame of reference and by that, no context by which we could decide how to treat you; so yeah, we use annoyance as a fall-back.

>>2179001

>implying metabeliefs are needed for a coherent understanding of concepts
>implying defining your fucking terms will prove anything about /lit/
>implying you're not a teenage girl on her period

honestly, the eagerness with which you are replying to these inane posts (which fit perfectly in such an inane thread) is making me nauseous. take some fucking midol.

>>2179163

fag

According to the mainstream of modern linguistic thought as well as that of cognitive psychology and Ludwig Wittgenstein, words lack strict lexical definitions, and while they do seem to share a conceptual underpinning between speakers, they are better interpreted in terms of the specific context in which they are used.

The precise process by which words are understood has not been perfectly modeled, but my favored model follows:
Words are loosely arranged clusters of concepts defined by neural networks which overlap between words. When a word is used, only a small number of its defined concepts will be "meant", and hopefully understood. Which specific concepts are meant is determined by a heuristic of relevance to the current situation, which is manifested as a higher degree of priming in the neurons indicating the controlled concept. This priming is assumed by the speaker to also be present in the listener. When it is not, the speech act is usually misunderstood.

So, at least in my opinion, defining these terms without an understanding of what you will use them for is at best impossible, and at worst dangerous.

>>2179174

What i'm reading is

>They cant be defined because their definitions are arbitrary

I agree.

>>2179219

that has nothing to do with what i said, and their definitions are not arbitrary.
Confirmed for being a complete fucking idiot. Don't post here anymore.

>>2179240

Do you not understand the connotations of your own statement?

>>2179245

fucking hell...having a concrete and formulated 2nd order belief is not needed for a perfectly coherent usage/application of the 1st order belief. (one knows he is looking at a painting without having a degree in aesthetics)
there is nothing arbitrary about the metabelief... it is simply not needed.
there's your connotation, now fuck off

>>2179268

>connotation

I should have said 'implications'

That is because you can define what a painting is. Defining if the painting is 'art' or not isnt so easy.

Because the definition of 'art' is personal, arbitrary, subjective.

Keep in mind the context of this thread, once again, its a reply to the argument about video games as art. You cant define art, the definition is arbitrary

>>2179295

you are saying the same thing, which i have already replied to...this is getting very boring.
im done here,
have a good night.

ps.

connotation means implication

ITT: tripfag 69.

>>2179317

>connotation means implication

not exactly.

>>2179330

con·no·ta·tion noun \ˌkä-nə-ˈtā-shən\

a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes
b : something suggested by a word or thing : implication <the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old chair>

>>2179342

the two words, implication and connotation, have different connotations.

Connotations 1)An idea or feeling that a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

This is an association.

Implication - The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

>see rather interesting thread
>think it might contain some content/intelligent conversation
>nope
>wait this is lit what was i thinking

>>2179370

In the name of /b/, gtfo...or tits!

>>2179370
this was a thread started by Deist, what the fuck were you thinking

>>2179373
Search for Kelly Eden.

>>2179366

Oh man, you start a thread about some opinion you have and then you just get wrapped up talking about yourself. Just talk about what you think and not who you are and nobody will have a problem with you tripcode (although you'd need to get a new one cause this one has a reputation).

I think this thread is pretty great though
>>2179088
>>2179120
>>2179131

Hahahahahaha

>>2179401

>Oh man, you start a thread about some opinion you have and then you just get wrapped up talking about yourself.

Wouldnt i be talking about myself either way, in a sense?

>. Just talk about what you think and not who you are and nobody will have a problem with you tripcode

I think I'm fucking awesome.

Also

>>2179020
>"Tripfags are cancer and this thread is sufficient proof of that."

people on /lit/ have a problem with everything or everyone independent of what that person does.

>(although you'd need to get a new one cause this one has a reputation).

A reputation for BEING A BOSS.

I think all those posts you quoted are you. You're the real tryhard, making reference to those posts because no one else did and it made you sad.

>>2179422

This is me. to be clear. Both the post i'm quoting and the picture.

>>2179422

No man, but all those posts are anonymous nobody can ever be sure of who wrote those. Isn't that cool? Wouldn't you rather be a part of the greater than your own minor identity?

google.com

define:

Problem solved

Sorry op you are a faggot. Now to me this that whatever anyone says you counter point with supposition and subjectivity. Relying on post modernism to compress clear terms into the mincer of perspective and individualism.

In otherwords nothing can exist outside of emotional response.

>>2179463

If you think connotations and implications are interchangeable you're a moron with no comprehension of the English language.

>In otherwords nothing can exist outside of emotional response.

base untruth.

>>2179468
Troll is successful because I can think of nothing more satisfying than finding you and raping your eyesocket with a vacume cleaner hose.

For one who is so determined to shoot everyone down by dismissing easily accessible definitions you have provided none of your own

Inb4 subjective, definitions don't exist

>>2179484

> subjective, definitions don't exist

Now we're getting somewhere

Bumping this fuckin pathetic thread