/lit/ - Literature

People ar emore likely to defend the things they like than the things they don't like.

I agree!

/lit/ is full of fat losers who can't decide for themself what type of person they want to be

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

>>2217429
>People responding to a D'Averc thread.

>mfw I agree

>>2217441
diaf cunt

>>2217451
have you met this guy called 'Satan'? He makes really retarded empty statements like that too you'll love him

>>2217459
Did I hurt your feelings?

>>2217461
Did I hit a nerve?

>>2217455
>>2217455
>>2217455
>>2217455

>>2217455
>>2217470
>implying D'Averc isn't the best tripfag on /lit/

>>2217484
>Implying you didn't take the trip off to respond to me.

Is it pretentious that I turn my back on anyone who complains about twilight when you bring up books.

We get it, it's a bad series, no one cares, get over it you fat fuck.
The ironies, they enjoy Daywatch and Eragon.
Or even if they enjoy stuff like Pynchon, they still disgust me because they can't be original and only hate on mass produced garbage because the collective does. Unoriginal drones.

>>2217492
yeah.. those fucking sheeple.

>>2217492
I mostly hate on Harry POtter and Stephen King because they're popular here. Everyone here hates Twilight so shitting on it would be boring

>>2217498
now u get it.

>>2217459

I'll fuck you til you love me faggot.

besides
the guy is right.
human nature is riddled with contradictions which must be accepted.
i feed both my baser and higher natures, as i see fit.
you're just a slave to your "standards" D&E.

>>2217504

Everyone should hate everything.

Why are all the tripfags unemployed?

Maybe they are tripfags because they're unemployed.

>>2217517
*except the things that are good

>>2217518
Most tripfags are students.
With the exception of D&E and Sunhwak.

So is twilight worth reading ?

>>2217525
If you hate yourself.

>>2217525
yes

>>2217539
This is /lit/, do you even have to ask that question?

>>2217525
I found it enjoyable. Not sure what all the fuss is about really with everyone hating it.

>>2217548
They hate what it represents: Lonely, helpless, docile girl being saved by a perfect guy who's inexplicably drawn to her and her boring demeanor.

It's kinda anti-feminist.

smmfh, you dont see what's wrong with twilight ?

>>2217557
It would be nice if you could convice me without the use of fallacies.

>>2217555
no, people hate it because meyer can't write prose if her life depended on it and she became rich because a bunch of tasteless brutes buy pandering shit.

>never been on /lit/
>expect R.R. Fartin' to be lionized
>see he's rightfully delegated the position of clown
>everything went better than expected.

>>2217555
lol, yeah, right. they totally don't hate it because they don't think they're allowed to like what those dumb, vapid bitches like, amirite??

deep and smegma, when are you going to make a picture with schopenhauer reminding you of all that valuable time you've lost surfing 4chan. "instead of reading all these posts written by jaded teenagers you can butt-fuck the western canon even more"

>>2217555
Sums it up nicely.

>>2217753

the brutish half should not detract from your refined half.
i read grrm because of the gratuitous rape and murder with swords and whatnot(baser self seems to find some sort of pleasure in that, and since i can't and won't go around killing and raping, the book suffices as an outlet)
i read nietzsche, stirner, kant, sartre, camus, hamsun etc because i find them highly enlightening/stimulating
and liking grrm does in no way propel me to read twilight (which i rank on the same shit tier as say... tao lin and james joyce)

>>2217773

No

Read enough srs bsns books to become Nietzche's Übermensch yet, D&E?

>>2217871
>which i rank on the same shit tier as say... tao lin and james joyce
UH OH LOOK AT MR. EDGEMEISTER HERE I DON'T WANT ANY TROUBLE SIR

>>2217871
>the brutish half should not detract from your refined half.
>i read nietzsche, stirner

>the brutish half should not detract from your refined half.
>i read nietzsche, stirner


lol, i love this guy

>>2217933

>butthurt stream of retard enthusiast

>>2217945
>implying it's not Tao Lin

>>2217945
>saying he likes books for their different functions and that no book is truly useless because they all have something to offer
>ends this thought with a disjointed venture of "But Joyce and Tao Lin totally suck!"

>>2217938

>has deep misunderstandings of both Stirner and Nietzsche


yawn...are we starting one of these debates again?

>>2217957

>that no book is truly useless because they all have something to offer

lrn2 reading comprehension fuckface

stop digging yourself into a hole bud

You misspelled millennia D&E. You're still right of course.

I read whatever I feel like for pleasure. Everything from Terry Pratchett to Daniel Silva.

Reading whatever catches your eye > *

>wonder why people hate tripfags so much
>see this thread
>all of my rage

>>2217976

expected evasive bullshit reply

get at me

>>2217962
I understand your post better than you do.

hey guys shame on me for wanting to evade the drooling handicap

I blame it on my "refined half" right guys

>/lit/ own 40 year old virgin cowers behind empty insults
>fears the impetus of satan's throbbing phallus

no one's bying it you vagina

>>2218008
>>2218008

really though

read that post again

so guys when do you think we're going to be seeing satan's refined half

oh wait

>>2218011
How dare you abuse the image of Tasteless for trolling purposes.

You disgust me.

People give d&e crap for not reading the books but his point is valid. I've read the first 4 books and can say they aren't written well at all, and anyone who thinks they are well written is as delusional as the twilight fans who think that's well written. You can pick any paragraph from any book of the series to see he is not a good writer.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the books. I think they're very entertaining. But when people label them as anything more than entertaining they go too far.

ITT: Quentin offers surprisingly reasonable opinion

>>2218086
But twilight IS well written, its just got a cheesy plot. It wasn't designed to appeal to elitist cuntfarts like you anyway, and it actually serves really well as a gateway drug into literature for kids.

>>2218096
But twilights not well written.
>its a gateway into literature
You can say the same for ASOIAF though. And even then its not always a gateway because it seems like fans of either series only stick to the same genres. Either that or they just reread the series.

the faggotry in this thread has reached critical mass

>>2218096
>gateway drug into literature
Its a dead end. Shitty literature just encourages appreciation of shitty literature.

reminder yall d'averc is literally deep&edgy

don't ever post in a d'averc thread. NOT EVEN ONCE.

>>2218062

really though...what would you consider refined d&e?
awkward role playing games with autistic 40 year olds?
or the rest of the time you spend playing video games?
tell me how you, a respectable and knowledgeable adult among us brutish college kids, embody the 'refined'?

and don't try to make things up...after all, we do know every facet of your pathetic existence (product of you never leaving this webiste)

>>2218134
I like D'Averc and I am going to post in his thread. :-)

>>2218134
You should probably learn to enjoy the trollin.

>Thread full of tripfags.
>Sinking like the fucking Titanic on an iceberg of rage and trolling.

Why am I not suprised?

>>2218161

said the fucking idiot as he gave the thread another bump

>>2218169
I could care less about where this thread stands on the board, tripfag.

deep and edgy is only a little bit older than me...

>>2218175
so he's like 12?

>>2218180
good post but you forgot to sage

>Why is fashion so self-contradictory?

ftfy bro

>>2218190

just when i thought this thread couldn't get any worse... capote shows up.

>>2218190
Is that the AmazingAtheist?

Sauce please.

>>2217429
>casual readers
I bow to the non-casual reader. The reader who spends his time reading Chomsky and Nietzsche not because he enjoys but because it makes him feel superior to people who read because they like to.
What the fuck is wrong with half the fags on 4chan? I might like Martin but I'm not going to hate people who read to enjoy a decent (this word is subjective, just to point it out for the retarded OP) story. Go whine somewhere else about how much better you are because you hate reading yet do it anyway, fag.

ASOIAF => Good escapist entertainment.

Twilight => Doesn't even really succeed as a novel on those terms, only appeals to sexually repressed teenage girls, and its thinly veiled Mormon anti-sex-before-marriage propaganda (making it both aesthetically and politically objectionable).

Its not rocket science is it?

>>2218194

don't have the video but it's real. he made a video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu1EmF-nsBA&feature=colike

>>2218196
>The reader who spends his time reading Chomsky and Nietzsche not because he enjoys but because it makes him feel superior to people who read because they like to.
Well dude if all you're interested in is enjoyment why don't you plonk your slobbish ass in front of the television. Because that's all your interested in, right, enjoyment? Meanwhile I'll go read some Chomsky and Nietzshe and feel superior i.e. be smarter, enjoy more rewarding literature. Y'know, what superiority is.

>>2218190


Is that...
is..
is that poop smeared on his bum?

*_*

Why would you do that?

>>2218231
> slobbish ass
My ass isn't "slobbish" (not a word) , it's fat
Yes, i feel inferior to the tripfag who can't spell.
Yeah, I guess you read more rewarding (again, a highly subjective word, to point out to the retarded OP). But at least i like reading, including the philosophy I have read.

>>2218234

It's chocolate.

>>2218260
>a highly subjective word
>subjective

You keep throwing that term around and we're gonna have a problem.

>>2218273

This routine is getting so redundant.
You're a one-dimensional bore.

>>2218260
-Slobbish

Oxford English Dictionary
slob (slɒb)
— n
1. informal a slovenly, unattractive, and lazy person
2. ( Irish ) mire

[C19: from Irish slab mud; compare slab ]

'slobbish
— adj

>>2218273
>saying subjectivity doesn't exist
yup, that there's an idiot, all right

>>2218282
Kee-rist, somebody get dust the doilies off and put the kettle on.
>>2218288
That's obviously something you've just made up.
>>2218273
Pic looks legit.

>>2218292
>saying subjectivity doesn't exist
Now where did I say that? After all, I'd have to understood what you meant by 'subjective' in order to say whether what you're talking about exists or not, wouldn't I? And let me clarify, I don't know what you specifically mean by the term, although I do indeed know many meanings of such a term. So please, if you would be so gracious as to enlighten me with a customary lexical definition.

>>2218292

except i'm pretty sure d&e doesn't say that

i mean he can't appreciate video games worth a shit (said cock of booty series wasn't poorly designed when it's a terrible mess of a shooter in comparison to quake/doom/unreal tournament any way you look at it) but subjectivity doesn't negate critical evaluation of a manuscript

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/good-bad-books.htm

>>2218273
>Stream of consciousness

Hahahah oh wow. Literature is either enjoyable or it's not. That drivel is not enjoyable.

>>2218309
I've read it. It's a shame that Orwell was stuck on an art/entertainment binary distinction that is absolutely superfluous to true critical appreciation.

>>2218311
You're going to have to be more specific, friend. After all, no literary technique is in and of itself good or bad.

>>2218303
the image macro, so i guess you're right in that you didn't say it, but you made a large picture of it and stood next to the picture and waggled your eyebrows suggestively
and to compare architecture/structural building/physics to any art medium is just plain out retarded

>>2217871
I have decided that I like you. And not just because d&e doesn't.

>>2218305
>said cock of booty series wasn't poorly designed when it's a terrible mess of a shooter in comparison to quake/doom/unreal tournament any way you look at it)
Wow, this sounds really interesting. Please, tell me why you think Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, for example, is a mess of a shooter. And do remember to draw comparisons where relevant with quake/doom/unreal tournament.

>>2218331
>to compare architecture/structural building/physics to any art medium is just plain out retarded
Try to be a little more broad in your understanding friend, it's not those things that are being compared, it's the underlying principles of each discipline that are.

We've been over this, D&E.

In the end you'll pull your "human flourishing" card, which amounts to your "16-year old who just read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zathustra" idea that reading the "right" books (as well as listening to the "right" music, and so one and so forth) will make you into the Übermensch.

Now, I could ask you if you've gotten a job, or gone out and done something more meaningful than spending hours at an end on 4chan, but we all know what the answer to those questions would be. So instead, I gotta ask...

...read enough srs bsns books to become the Übermensch yet, D&E?

>>2218324

>It's a shame that Orwell was stuck on an art/entertainment binary distinction that is absolutely superfluous to true critical appreciation.

Do you really think that's a satisfactory retort to Orwell's essay? It's "a shame" he makes a certain point, and that one of several?

>>2218334
>>2218337

YOU KEEP FUCKING SAYING THE SAME SHIT. YOU ARE FUCKING BORING. STOP FUCKING BEING SO BORING.

>>2218337
no, it's not
it's the results of each study (specifically, the quality of an object in doing it's designed purpose) which is being compared
and knowing that a chair will stand and not break can be proven using mathematical formulas
protip, since you seem to like social skills: people are different. people have different likes and dislikes. i, for one, find serial killers to be fascinating studies in deviancy. however, another may find them disturbing and brutish to contemplate. so reading a book from the view of a serial killer may be entertaining and have serious merit to me, but is sensationalist trash to another.
tl;dr art has no worth, because art is made to be interpreted. if you put a binary code into ten different computers, and each computer has a different way of reading code, then you'll come up with ten different results. 'critical assessment', as you are quite fond of saying, is useless when it comes to art, because meanings and themes can not be rated on a scale.

>>2218338
>In the end you'll pull your "human flourishing" card, which amounts to your "16-year old who just read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zathustra" idea that reading the "right" books (as well as listening to the "right" music, and so one and so forth) will make you into the Übermensch.
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. When have I said anything about the ubermensch? When have I said anything about right or wrong books, music, anything?

>>2218339
It's not really a retort because as I've said, it's superfluous to what I'm doing.

>>2218126
Wrong.

>>2218347
>proven using mathematical formulas
That's an interesting phrase you used there, because you seem to think that these things you call proof and mathematical formulas, which are simply adherence to a set of arbitrary conventions and no different to a deflationary statement of truth, do not happen in English. But of course, adherence to arbitrary convention happens in English too! Maybe it's not quite as consistent or established consensus, but that does not mean it is non-existent. So, what's the problem bud?

>people are different. people have different likes and dislikes.
Sure, some people like good books, some people like mediocre books and some people like bad books. What a diverse world we live in!

>art has no worth
For who?

>art is made to be interpreted
It's not, but I don't see how that follows in any case.

>>2218365
>arbitrary conventions
oh lord, i'm getting trolled aren't i
either that or you have no concept of how even basic science works
>the rest of that post
great retorts, i'm going to respond in a d'avercian way:
no, you're wrong.

>>2218371
>you have no concept of how even basic science works
Through arbitrary axioms which empirical principles are derived from. This is very similar to English, where arbitrary axioms are used which empirical principles are derived from.

>no, you're wrong.
That's a great impression, but you forgot the counter-arguments I always make!

>>2218379
you have no idea what the fuck you're saying, do you
1. learn what 'arbitrary' means. protip: it does not mean what you think it means.
2. ah fuck it, 10/10 you win

Casual readers seems inconsistent because preference is often based on subtitles. They try to distinguish the characteristics that define why they dislike something but then realize that their something else that they do like that shares those characteristics.

They say they dislike Taylor Swift because all her songs sound the same, but they forget that they own every AC/DC album.

WHAT THE FUCKSHITCJHDRJGDDDFGUFF

video games? Fucking VIDEO GAMES? Wtf is going on ITT?!?

Oh look at me, I'm so smart and refined, blah blah, plop your "slobbish" ass in front of the tv, blah blah, and then I was playing xbox and there was SUCH a cool game!

Dude what the hell? I don't even fucking know man, what? I would rather read twilight then play videogames any fucking day.

>>2218382
>you have no idea what the fuck you're saying, do you
I'm afraid I do, friend.
>learn what 'arbitrary' means
Here is how I use it, 'Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference'. Perhaps you have simply misunderstood what I have been saying because you have not grasped the sense in which I use the word 'arbitrary'!

>>2218334

map design is lackluster (facilitating positioning ability and weapon loadout optimization over physical skill and proficiency at controlling the character and maneuvering)

gameplay is slow (again does not encourage higher-level playing by diminishing player skill impact on outcome of the game)

map pack expansions are paid dlc controlled by bobby kyktick as opposed to free releases made for and by the community (mods are gameplay content regardless of how one looks at them and should be factored into consideration of a game's quality)

guns are effectively series of upgraded versions of the same five base weapons (unlike quake which has those five + plasma, lightning gun and BFG with static stats for each, decreasing variance in gun usage and contributing more value to player skill in strafing/movement as a result)

level system inhibits player skill ability (ARC dominates as one of the top tier assault rifles in game, and level 52[? i think this is when it's unlocked]+ folks using it will out-shoot those under them if player skill level is identical)

>>2218387
science is not arbitrary
in fact, science is the exact fucking opposite of arbitrary
science is so far from arbitrary that people trying to make maps between the two go insane and kill themselves with mixing bowls
you're fucking retarded

Am I the only person who thinks that arguing with someone who cannot spell "inconsistent" is a waste of their time?

>>2218407
You should be.

>>2218391
>facilitating positioning ability and weapon loadout optimization
>physical skill and proficiency at controlling the character and maneuvering
This is a false distinction. There is only physical skill in any competitive game ever. I could simply point out that the game privileges a different skillset than reflex and movement skills, but I don't need to go that far.

>(playing the game) is slow
>does not encourage higher-level playing by diminishing player skill impact on outcome of the game
I don't see at all how that follows from a different pace in a game. Higher-level playing has nothing to do the pace of a game. That is something that emerges through a proficiency with mechanics, something that can be explained without any reference at all to pace.

>guns are effectively series of upgraded versions of the same five base weapons
Guns are effectively sets of damage values. This applies just as much to quake.

>decreasing variance in gun usage and contributing more value to player skill in strafing/movement as a result
But this has no relevance to a criticism of CoD because a mastery of mechanics in CoD does not include skill in strafing/movement. So your criticism is as ridiculous as it would be if you were to say that it was a worse game for not having kara-throws or parries.

>level system inhibits player skill ability
No, it is part of determining the conditions under which some players are good at the game and some players are bad.

>ARC dominates as one of the top tier assault rifles in game
And knowledge of this will thus be important for anyone who wants to get good at the game. How is this a criticism?

>level 52[? i think this is when it's unlocked]+ folks using it will out-shoot those under them if player skill level is identical
Again, a demonstration of an understanding of the mechanics of the game, essential to anyone who wants to get good at a game. What's the problem?

>>2218415
>Guns are effectively sets of damage values. This applies just as much to quake.
you've never played quake, have you

>>2218392
>science is not arbitrary
Of course it is. Scientific conventions are always subject to individual judgement or preference. I don't have to assent to any scientific convention, which itself was historically conceived and assented to by various individuals.

>>2218407

"I may not know how to play the flute, but I know how to make a nation great."

>>2218418
>you've never played quake, have you
I have indeed, although I mostly played Quake 2. The edge was my favourite map.

>>2218419
> Scientific conventions are always subject to individual judgement or preference.
NO they're NOT
holy shit you're retarded
pi is always going to be 3.14
the diameter of a circle is always going to be radius times pi squared
the centroid of a triangle is always going to be it's center of gravity
the speed of light is always going to be 299,792,458 m/s
none of these EVER FUCKING CHANGE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL JUDGEMENT
that's the ENTIRE POINT of doing EXPERIMENTS
fuck, you're a master troll

>>2218427
>pi is always going to be 3.14
Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.

>the diameter of a circle is always going to be radius times pi squared
Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.

>the centroid of a triangle is always going to be it's center of gravity
Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.

>the speed of light is always going to be 299,792,458 m/s
Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.

I invite you to demonstrate how such cases are otherwise.

You're going to have to come up with something a little more substantial mate.

>implying anything is real

tut tut btw, someone needs to read up on their axioms and other features of metalanguage

>>2218432
>Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.
oh my god
you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you
protip: stop reading shitty books and learn some physics/engineering/mathematics, mate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Corridor#Demonstrations for speed of light

Hivemind mentality

You tell someone that something sucks, or is a masterpiece, they take it either one of 2 ways: they either dismiss your opinion for what it is, a fucking opinion, and determine whether or not this is true by watching it or accept your opinion as a credible source without even trying to think for themselves. The latter, my friend, is hivemind mentality, and it is more common than you would think. /lit/ has some of the fewest hivemind of any board, consisting only of a nearly universal love for ulysses, blood meridian, and soiaf, however, as a longtime 4chan user, it saddens me to see the other boards, particularly /mu/, suffering so severely from this rash stupidity.

>>2218442
>stop reading shitty books and learn some physics/engineering/mathematics, mate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Corridor#Demonstrations for speed of light
Thank you, but that doesn't affect the validity of any of my claims, friend. Please, tell me how axioms are not arbitrary.

>>2218450
but it's not an axiom because they demonstrated it, fuckface
if you're trying to demonstrate subjectivity here, the entire point of my first post was that there's a difference between science and the humanities

>>2218442
May I ask you a question?
What is science based on?

>>2218452
repeated observations

>>2218451
>but it's not an axiom because they demonstrated it
No, they demonstrated it and of course it follows, based on arbitrary axioms, which is what I said.

>>2218459
you don't understand what an axiom is, or arbitrary
this isn't even up for debate, you simply lack the mental faculties to do so

>>2218456
Ok, so, through repeated observations, can I conclude that you have the iq of a babboon?

>>2218451
>you don't understand what an axiom is, or arbitrary
Why do you think that? And I've already told you my understanding of arbitariness, which seems perfectly reasonable unless you'd like to object.

>>2218468
you could, but that would probably be a bad conclusion to this experiment, since baboons don't really have a set IQ rating

These threads used to pretend to have a point. Now they don't even try

Bump, still waiting to be told how I don't understand assumed fundamental propositions which cannot be proven or refuted

>>2218485
Do even read what you post anymore?

>>2218485
i gave up fighting the troll
someday you'll realize how stupid you are, and then end your life

I hate Twilight because I saw the movie and it sucked. And Vampires don't sparkle.

>>2218491
Vampires aren't even real, your argument is based on disputable axioms and is therefore arbitrary.

>>2218490
>i gave up fighting the troll

Listen dude, no-one falls for that shit. You tripped over your own dribbling tongue trying to argue about metalanguage with your poxy high schooler understanding of physics. Now, take your medicine and kindly piss off.

>>2218502
Why call them vampires then? Can I write a story about a creature that runs on all fours and eats ice cream and call it Godzilla. Is that chill?

>>2218509
That is arbitrary.

>>2218504
Your calling him a troll is purely a disputable axiom D&E

step up your game.

>>2218517
Really? Thank you for enlightening me in the ways of ignoring arguments.
What isn't arbitrary? If you don't mind me asking...

>Listen dude, no-one falls for that shit. You tripped over your own dribbling tongue
Why does everyone start to sound like Constance Garnett's translation of War and Peace once they start getting shitty?

And of course, just because something is arbitrary does not mean it cannot motivate great swathes of people to endorse it through its utility or practicality, whether that be in the discipline of science of English Literature. Of course, this is never going to be good enough for underdeveloped, myopic retards who need the comfort blankets of 'factuality', 'objectivity' and 'truth' to have the gall to make statements about the world and the people in it. Fuck'em, fuck the cowards and milksops, fuck'em all to hell.

>>2218528
You wouldn't understand pertinence if it shoved its veiny cock right down your mineshaft-sized anus, you dribbling Neanderthal small minded cretin.

>>2218534

butterfly in the sky

So op, I'm new here, sorta. I have a question. Im no college guy, just a High school dropout turned carpenter who *likes* to read, so keep your fancy shit dimmed down for me please.

What is your daily outlook on life? When you get up in the morning, what gets you going?

Just want to know how a wise man thinks so I may attempt to see through your eyes.

>>2218534
>tack more words onto insults
>they become more effective
wat

>>2218729

Prozac will get him through the morning.
Trying to make use of his worthless Ph.d in aesthetics by arguing subjectivity with highschoolers on /lit/ will get him through the afternoon.
And a solid dicking from his "lads" (after some role playing involving dice and costumes) will get him through the night.

>>2218560

say more

>>2218780
I can go twice as high

>>2218432
>Sure, as long as I or anyone else assents to the arbitrary axiom from which such a proof is derived.
I don't think this actually means anything.

>2011
>postmodernism

>>2218805

wat

>>2218791
They're arbitrary because you cannot derive the logic behind them.

....my boredom has peaked

>>2218365
>>2218365

>That's an interesting phrase you used there, because you seem to think that these things you call proof and mathematical formulas, which are simply adherence to a set of arbitrary conventions and no different to a deflationary statement of truth, do not happen in English.

Your half assed interpretation of Kuhn leaves much to be desired. There is arbitrariness in discovery and arbitrariness in confirmation/justification. Those axioms aren't arbitrary in the sense that they reflect the external world; they aren't arbitrary in the second sense. The axioms which drive theories like Quantum Mechanics have had extensive confirmation (the arbitrariness in which they might initially arise does nothing to detract from the objectivity which they are attest to, and here is where you are confused...you have no sense of the discovery-justification distinction of scientific theories)

>But of course, adherence to arbitrary convention happens in English too! Maybe it's not quite as consistent or established consensus, but that does not mean it is non-existent.

HAHAHAHA
again you are begging the question that science is driven by mere consensus, which as i have explained above, it is not.
moving on to the most pathetic part of that post:

that "maybe" in there is quite disingenuous because we both know that the arguments in aesthetics can in no way ever reach the consensus reached in science, because after all, there is no external realm in which to test these
axioms (unlike science, where empirical verification is key).


...your phd is meaningless

>>2218852
>mathematics
>science
>Quantum Mechanics

satan everybody! the man who thinks mathematics is a science that includes quantum mechanics.

The thought of it urkel's my mind

>>2218852

anticipating a potential idiotic response: notice that i said there is no external realm to TEST those axioms.
I didn't say that there is no external realm to APPLY them, for there clearly is, in the multitude of mediums in existence.
their mere application does not warrant a hierarchy, they are incommensurable, and fundamentally arbitrary in both discovery and justification.

>>2218865

This is such an idiotic post.

>>2218865

this is such a stupid post

>>2218852
>unlike science, where empirical verification is key
So you've founded this belief in science in empirical verification rather than anecdotal evidence?

>>2218882
tell me more about this field of mathematics that include quantum mechanics mr satan

>>2218902
fucking casuals

>casual
take this shit somewhere else

>>2218884

that kind of circle jerking wont work on me.
your claim is too abstracted to hold any ground.

certain facts are manifest in the real world, and when we try to formulate them, they sometimes create linguistic traps, which are nothing more than that and have no import whatsoever...

i'll reformulate if that doesn't please you (ad-hoc... call the cops):

all non analytic claims expect this one following need empirical verification

>>2218892

stop.
you are embarrassing yourself.


The implication (obvious though not to retards like you) is that the 'theoretical' framework of QM is mathematics, you dumb fucking tool, not that QM is a 'field' of mathematics. now fuck off.

wat

>>2218924
the theoretical framework of qm is written in mathematics, but it's not mathematics. and calling the formulations axioms is a really naive use of the word.

>go to /lit/
>D&E thread is on the top
>this board is the worst

>>2218909
>certain facts are manifest in the real world, and when we try to formulate them, they sometimes create linguistic traps
Really? Could you provide a few examples?

This is probably the worst fucking thread I've ever seen. Right from the very beginning, this thread was a piece of shit and yet people keep arguing with and bumping this bullshit. Thank you for ruining everything nice.

>>2218956
>hide thread
>move on

>>2218941

>written in mathematics, but it's not mathematics

>>2218956

why

>>2218909
>when we try to formulate them, they sometimes create linguistic traps
Thats just you blindly believing in incomplete theory.

>>2218961
what is it? you don't understand? poor satan, he can't figure how maths work. it's too complex for his tripfag brain.

just because it's written in maths, doesn't mean it's maths. it's physics. it just uses mathematical notation because it's convenient for the kind of logically compliant operations it must perform.

but why expect a pleb like you to know anything about maths?

>>2218980
Did this guy win? I think he did.

>>2219017
of course I did. i'm apparently the only person on /lit/ who is mathematically literate.

>Deep&Edgy/D'Averc thread.

where are the sages? I need herbs!

>>2219022
That's cool I think. I want to be a neuroscientist.

>>2219034
good luck with that.

Man, /lit/ has the best trolling.

>>2219041
>Man, /lit/ has the dumbest trollbait.
ftfy

>>2218980
>Mathematics is a broad-ranging field of study in which the properties and interactions of idealized objects are examined. Whereas mathematics began merely as a calculational tool for computation and tabulation of quantities, it has blossomed into an extremely rich and diverse set of tools, terminologies, and approaches which range from the purely abstract to the utilitarian.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Mathematics.html

>>2219093
nothing in that description contradicts what I said

>>2219102

Physics is done when a model is compared with reality. Math is done when you look at the model closely for properties and interactions. In physics you do lots of math because important information is usually not explicit stated in the model, you have to find it by doing math.

>>2219114
>Physics is done when a model is compared with reality.
what about theoretical physics?

>>2219114

Maths is language and abstract
Physics is science and experienced

proceed

>D&E makes a troll thread
>183 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
nothing new here

>>2218852
>Those axioms aren't arbitrary in the sense that they reflect the external world
only by way of further arbitrary axioms that are the conditions for delineating how they could reflect the external world

>the arbitrariness in which they might initially arise does nothing to detract from the objectivity which they are attest to
only by way of further arbitrary axioms that are the conditions for delineating how they could reflect the external world

>again you are begging the question that science is driven by mere consensus, which as i have explained above, it is not.
You didn't do that anywhere

>>2219276

>only by way of further arbitrary axioms that are the conditions for delineating how they could reflect the external world
Those axioms aren't arbitrary in the sense that they reflect the external world

>only by way of further arbitrary axioms that are the conditions for delineating how they could reflect the external world
the arbitrariness in which they might initially arise does nothing to detract from the objectivity which they are attest to

>You didn't do that anywhere
again you are begging the question that science is driven by mere consensus, which as i have explained above, it is not.

>>2219278
>>2219276
im on drugs

>daverc
>deep and edgy
>188 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

why /lit/ why?

>>2219311
Some science idiot who doesn't know anything about philosophy got really butthurt

its always good coming back to /lit/ for my monthly dose of pretentiousness

a song of ice and fire is a fantastic series and anyone who disagrees is a fucking idiot (aka most of you people). /lit/'s hate on fantasy is one of the most pretentious things i've ever encountered on the internet. so what if it isn't as stimulating as pynchon or joyce, or as beautifully written as nabakov. it's still incredibly entertaining and enjoyable to read.

i mean jesus christ, don't you fuck knobs realise you have enough time to read and appreaciate both? fucking sigh.

>>2219324
I didn't find it that entertaining, tbh.

OP's picture works with EVERY goddamn book there is, because of the subjectivity of the statement.

Picture sage. plus sage in all fields.

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE; OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE; RELATIVITY IS OBJECTIVE.

>>2219401
Your mom's objective. Oh wait, she's just an object, my fault.

>>2219278
see
>>2219276

>>2219355
>works with EVERY goddamn book there is, because of the subjectivity of the statement.
>this statement can be applied to any book, because it's relative

But that doesn't tell us anything of whether it would be apt or not in any specific instance. So what you said is devoid of significance.

art is form and content. the purpose of the form and content is different for every piece of art and what you're judging is basically opinions and ideas. a table is supposed to be able to stand up, the intention of a piece of art may be to inspire a revolution or to glorify a regime. not everything is trying to make you "flourish." what's left to debate is how well the form conveys this opinion or idea. if we can't talk about the content we have to reluctantly accept art as great because it required great craftsmanship but that's missing the point of talking about art; figuring it out why it had/hadn't an emotional/intellectual impact on us and what the piece succeeds/fails at.

>>2219456
You seem to be in the wrong thread mate what we're talking about here has nothing to do with art, so y'know, take your dumb views elsewhere.

>>2219461

literature is form and content so you can go fuck yourself

daverc the font in your op image sucks, get better taste in typography

>>2219462
do you like want a gold star for this incredible realization that has no impact on what anyone has been talking about in this thread?

I keep hearing about how wonderful Hunger Games are. I have them on my computer and I cannot get past the bad writing.
Terrible writing = epic book series all of a sudden.

Fuck you, James Patterson and Dan Brown for starting this trend.

>they enjoy stuff like Pynchon
>This entire show was based around drunks enjoying Pynchon.

>>2219466

you're the one judging form thinking your being impartial and totally knowledgeable when all that is shining through is the base tastes of a sheltered 20-something who has never done an honest day's work in his entire life, no vision, convictions and no ideas. you're bad at criticizing literature because literature is about ideas, as well! keep up the good work though!

>>2219473
>you're bad at criticizing literature because literature is about ideas, as well!
Please, explain to me how work of literature can be better or worse on the basis of ideas. Also, I'd like you to point out any one idea in a novel where you're at it.

>>2219473
>thinking your being impartial and totally knowledgeable
Hardly, I'm entirely biased towards good writing and education.

welp guys, literature is about ideas

guess i only ever have to read strictly philosophical works from now on in my life

>>2219476
>>2219486

I have read plenty of interviews where the author said he wanted to express himself on a variety of topics. also because he loved the medium and the form but that's obvious. if you hate explicitly stated ideas in the art and entertainment you engage with perhaps you should focus on something with more emphasis on form? games, music, sculpture? poetry? and then read philosophy for the "meat" of your well-rounded education

>>2219492
>I have read plenty of interviews where the author said he wanted to express himself on a variety of topics. also because he loved the medium and the form but that's obvious.
'The Intentional Fallacy', 'Death of the Author', 'What is an Author', 'On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense', 'The Ego and Its Own'. Come back to me when. I have absolutely no time to give to people who simply vomiting their intuitions and preconceptions out into my thread.

>>2219466
>>2219476
>>2219486
>>2218348
>>2218334
>>2218324
>>2218303
>>2218273
>>2218231
>>2218011
>>2217976
>>2217465
>>2217459
>>2217429
>Pretentiousness
>Pretentiousness everywhere
>D'Averc is the literature major that carries Infinite
Jest around all semesters and tries to be seen reading it.
>Will never publish or make a living writing

>>2219495
whoah get a load of this retard

>>2219495
uh oh, we got another retard in the thread

>>2219495
wowwwww, what...... a retard

>>2219498
>>2219499
>>2219500

This. +1

>>2219500
Hahaha... Retards.

>>2218980

you stupid asshole.
i was saying that that distinction is wholly insignificant to my point.
written in math= math for the purposes of my argument(and reductively speaking for anyone's purposes). No one was fucking saying that physics is strictly math, or vice versa...My argument,which you have neglected with your tangential and insignificant point, does not concern that...though im sure you are just trolling
8/10 got me to reply 4 times

>>2219276

>only by way of further arbitrary axioms that are the conditions for delineating how they could reflect the external world

right....arbitrary in historical sense...not in the justificatory sense

>>2219506
>right....arbitrary in historical sense...not in the justificatory sense
I'd like you to point out the difference for us all

>>2219508

I already have, twat

>>2218852
>>2218867

>>2219494

if you hate explicitly stated ideas in the art and entertainment you engage with perhaps you should focus on something with more emphasis on form? games, music, sculpture? poetry? and then read philosophy for the "meat" of your well-rounded education

>>2219517
Oh, I thought you had one to show that I hadn't already demonstrated to be arbitrary. There isn't actually a difference between historical and justificatory senses, because justification is inescapably historically constituted in material and social conditions, and I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

>>2219518
>if you hate explicitly stated ideas in the art and entertainment you engage with perhaps you should focus on something with more emphasis on form?
Or I could just read good literature.

>>2219522

if there is text in the book which can be seen as a commentary/interpretation/explanation/extrapolation of or on something in the real world it's there in the text, it's of importance to the text and it should be important in the evaluation of the work as a multifaceted piece of literature. like a lesser form of philosophy, as you'd probably say

>>2219536
>if there is text in the book which can be seen as a commentary/interpretation/explanation/extrapolation of or on something in the real world it's there in the text, it's of importance to the text and it should be important in the evaluation of the work as a multifaceted piece of literature
All great points you've made there bud, nothing to do with determining the quality of a literary text vis a vis critical evaluation however, which is not the same thing as interpretation, psychology, history, economy or other facets of literature that you've discussed here.

>>2219506
>written in math= math for the purposes of my argument
So all definitions are mutable.

>>2219547

if it is a part of the literature it is important in the evaluation of it as literature. if I make a painting and nail a dead skunk to the canvas you don't disregard the skunk, you view it as a whole. I'm not saying you should talk about the economy, acknowledge the skunk

>>2219521

>There isn't actually a difference between historical and justificatory senses, because justification is inescapably historically constituted in material and social conditions

its nice that you keep regurgitating Kuhn, but here's how you're wrong:

there is a sharp distinction between the historical and justificatory contexts. The historical/ discovery context is entirely irrelevant to the substantive/empirical justification for a theory. Seeing a snake eating its own tail and then developing the hexagonal structure of benzene can be seen as the historical aspect of a theory. The formula and its confirmation is the substantive/justificatory aspect.

Take GTR. The historical context for its coming about might have well been that Einstein had buddies in high places who arbitrarily vouched for it. However, seeing light bend in a specific (as GTR postulated) with a telescope is an instance of the justificatory context. GRT made specific predictions. and they were confirmed through observations. There is no arbitrariness here.
Nothing about your meaningless phd and your meaningless arguments in this thread can ever achieve the empirical support which GTR has achieved.

>>2219557

bend in a specific way*

>>2219557
>Seeing a snake eating its own tail and then developing the hexagonal structure of benzene can be seen as the historical aspect of a theory
That's a metaphor for what you're meant to be explaining in clear conceptual terms, friend. In any case, you're using an example that is based on fundamentally arbitrary axioms to be coherent, so you have simply tried to pull yourself out of the argument by your bootstraps, or arbitrary axioms, which were what you were meant to establish as non-arbitrary and historically grounded in the first place.

>seeing light bend in a specific (as GTR postulated) with a telescope is an instance of the justificatory context. GRT made specific predictions. and they were confirmed through observations. There is no arbitrariness here.
Insofar as one does not mention that such observations are only coherent insofar as one supposes that they are derived from arbitrary axioms. Again, you have not established what you are trying to prove, you have simply shifted the playing field from one level of abstraction to another.

>>2219495
If he doesn't feel like publishing he can always go to business. He'd probably be making 6+ figures if he did.

>>2219562

the same vacuous sophistry...i guess you need to have the last word even when we both know that you're not saying anything significant..

>such observations are only coherent insofar as one supposes that they are derived from arbitrary axioms

the observations are entirely theory-neutral.
light bends regardless of the (historically) arbitrary axiom which postulated it.

>>2219571
>light bends regardless of the (historically) arbitrary axiom which postulated it.
This is incorrect, because it is only by the assumption one makes in positing an entirely historical arbitrary axiom that it make sense to say in the first that light bends at all, which is thereby to privilege one axiom over others through selection, which thereby demonstrates that such a theory is not neutral

stress toys for otaku

>>2219577

DUDE.
GRAVITY MAKES LIGHT BEND.
IT FUCKING BENDS!
THE AXIOM WHICH POSTULATED THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE REAL WORLD MANIFESTATION OF FACT. LIGHT.BENDS.
GIVE IT A REST.

ASOIAF is the best Fantasy series written. Deal with it.

>>2219592
>THE AXIOM WHICH POSTULATED THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE REAL WORLD MANIFESTATION OF FACT.
Which itself is only coherent within an arbitrary system of axioms that are postulated in language. I'm still waiting for you to show me an instance of this that does not invoke such a regress.

>>2219603
forgot my trip

>>2219605
>>2219603
Maybe I can be a little more helpful and enlightening here.
>Which itself is only coherent within an arbitrary system of axioms that are postulated in language, and hence, perfectly relevant to any such claims made

>>2219603
>>2219609

>Which itself is only coherent within an arbitrary system of axioms that are postulated in language

coherence is entirely irrelevant to fact. we (humans) are irrelevant to fact. Light still bends if no humans (and their axioms) ever existed.
the only point here is that some axioms are empirically verified (science), and thus not arbitrary in the justificatory sense regardless of how arbitrary they are in the historical sense....while others are meaningless and arbitrary in both senses (aesthetics).
your regress argument is entirely meaningless....lrn2 context of discovery/history vs. context of justification....im bored now

go ahead...have the last word

>>2219633
>coherence is entirely irrelevant to fact
Of course, it's not. Coherence, and therefore axioms, is a precondition for factuality.

>some axioms are empirically verified
You can't prove or disprove an axiom.

>>2219637

>You can't prove or disprove an axiom.

fucking hell...I said they have empirical support. the theoretical products of the axiom. not the axiom itself. that kind of nitpicking only shows that you are way the fuck over your head and have to resort to petty retorts such as this...

What is wrong with saying Literature is "subjective" on the understanding that it is a major exaggeration? D'Averc must concede that Art is on a completely different league of arbitrariness to that found in Math, and that is what people mean by calling it subjective?

>>2219644
>I said they have empirical support
And this is established only through the arbitrary adoption of some other axiom. Hence, shifting the playing field and not providing a counter-point. I've already discussed this.

>>2219637
So the rules governing mathematics are a bit like a metaphor structure that seems to work for describing sciences?

>>2219687
Fuck off cockbreath, stop shitting up my /lit/

>shitpost
>other tripfags respond and the circlejerk commences
>still not deleted after two days

It's like I'm really on /v/!

>>2219699
>Cowardly anonymous poster doesn't understand the high level shit going down
>Blames his own inadequacy at making the board interesting on our betters, the tripfriends

>>2219708
I honestly chortled

So is literary appreciation considered a science yet?

>>2219722
Science has nothing to do with literary appreciation

>>2219732
And thank goodness for that.

>>2219732

not yet.

>>2220073

>lets_sterlise_torture.jpg

what?

>>2220091

He argues the only reason we don't allow torture is because of how emotionally traumatic it is, so he advocates the use of a 'truth pill' which you would give to terrorists to cause unimaginable pain so that they give up all their secrets.

>>2219732

What an absolutely asinine remark.

>>2220094

wouldn't "causing unimaginable pain" be emotionally traumatic? (to both the terrorist and the administrator who has to watch him writhe in 'unimaginable' pain)... ben stiller doesn't seem to know what talking about lol

>>2220094

Wouldn't causing "unimaginable pain" be emotionally traumatic?(to both the terrorist and the administrator who has to watch him writhe in 'unimaginable' pain)...Ben Stiller doesn't seem to know what he is talking about..

>pretentious readers don't like to admit they like twilight

I watched the Twilight films a few days ago and they weren't nearly as bad as people liken them to be.

>>2220192

the idea is that prisoner would go unconscious while experiencing the pain, thus removing the emotional revulsion experienced by the administrators of the pill so that you can clearly see the higher morality of having the terrorist reveal the location of the bomb or whatever.

>>2220311
only problem is that you're a giant pleb and wouldn't know a good movie or prose if it raped your mother with a table leg in front of you.

>>2219557
>>seeing light bend in a specific (as GTR postulated)

Twice as much as in Newtons theory :D
Yes, i wanted to show off ^^ I mean the threat is tits up anyway...

Hach at least we physicist can build something that evaporates our enemies if they annoy us too much.

Quickly expanding fusion plasma does not care if you think its only quickly expanding depending on arbitrary axioms or not. It simply evaporates you.

cya suckers

>>2220315

I have excellent taste in film.

And I didn't say the Twilight movies were good, I said they weren't as bad as people liken them to be.

>D&E (D'Averc) makes a thread
>Will reach the maximum amount of posts and then slowly die

I think you still have it in you.

>>2220325
>I have excellent taste in film.

I'm sure you do

I like the occasional exclamation mark, D&E. It's a nice touch, adds an extra pinch of patronizing on top of the "sport" and "lad" and "chum".

>>2220317

>Quickly expanding fusion plasma does not care if you think its only quickly expanding depending on arbitrary axioms or not.

right on. we're on the same side here.
fuck the axioms duck for cover, call the cops and whatnot...

>>2217429
Huh?
Oh, probably because they don't think that much about it.
Most people, if you asked them, wouldn't really have opinion about anything they read beyond "I liked it" or "I didn't like it."

wat is poast limit for thred?

>>2220369
nun
is infinit

>>2220355
I wonder how many people that picture has hospitalized

>>2220355
>dat pick
Fuckin lol.
Fuckin chloramine.
Fuckin crystals, how do they work?

>>2220369
Usually at 300, posts stop bumping the thread.

>>2220444
Let us reach our destination then.

Anyone else read this book? Opinions? I read it once, kind of liked it but had a feeling I wasn't really grasping it fully, so I read it again and really enjoyed it the second time around.

Check 'em