/lit/ - Literature

*boops your nose* boop

>>6175927
It's actually very utilitarian considering that beauty is universally loved by all--and something incredibly hard to pull off.

So suck a cock OP, you're dumb.

>>6175934

Oh, I don't share the sentiment whatsoever. I've had the sentiment expressed to me multiple times, and it's made me very upset. I wanted to get different views on the topic.

>>6175936
TTKM.

>>6175936
creating something beautiful is not an intellectual pursuit

critiquing something is an intellectual pursuit

so your question is actually intellectual masturbation

>>6175927
>2015
>not being an aesthete

>>6175944

Forced meme

>>6175946

>Surprised about intellectual masturbation
>on /lit/

pls

Is sex bad?
Shouldn't we work harder?
Why are we so selfish?
And other classics from the OP's dreary protestant mind.

No >>6175135

>>6175934
>beauty is universally loved by all

Care to provide evidence for those hot opinions?

>>6175953
>implying I'm surprised

>>6175966
sorry mr edgemaster i forgot your mind is only inclined to the darkness

i tip my fedor to your ravished soul

>>6175970
well you can't exactly make those sweeping generalizations

daily reminder that a chief keef song brings more net pleasure to the world than some edgy painting

>>6176010
beauty is by definition enjoyed by all those who are able to enjoy. dysthymics and bored teenagers need not apply

>>6175934
I think you are right

>>6176036

>popular opinion should determine value

O

>>6175927
Yes.
And just like literal masturbation, its a healthy part of living and sometimes fun for others if they want to look.

>>6176036
> net pleasure
Oh, you invented the machine to measure it? Thank god

>>6175927
Is creating a child for the sake of itself actual masturbation? No, it's that other thing.

>>6175927
If it is, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with intellectual masturbation.

>>6175927
No. Beauty is one of the primary ways that God talks to mankind. (Read Tolkien on that, he develops this philosophy in great depth.)

>>6176677
yeah... nah

>>6175927
'Masturbation' implies that nothing is being created. Son, no, it's not intellectual masturbation, it's intellectual intercourse with, uh, idk, the material from which you're creating?

>>6176690
But masturbation creates.

>>6176702
Creates what?

>>6176681
Fucking plebs on this board. I wish I could punch plebs like you in the nuts over TCP/IP.

>>6176711
Spooge. Very short-term gratification and immediately following it shame and disgust.

>>6176718
Dude, you get your philosophies from tolkien, even if you have a point, you still don't get to call anyone a pleb.

>>6176677
the demiurge speaks not, fool

>>6176724
2/10
This is the kind of shit that brings this board down to even lower levels.

>>6176723
>Spooge
Nope, that's already there, masturbation just releases it. The intellectual equivalent would probably be just contemplating a thing instead of creating it. Which is a pleasant thing to do, but ultimately a pointless exercise. Like, what we're doing now, posting about intellectual masturbation on /lit/, THAT is intellectual masturbation.

>>6176724
You haven't read any of his work, you're basing your so-called "criticism" on your second-hand impression of watching some Peter Hackson films.

That's like badmouthing Fitzgerald because you dislike DiCaprio.

Anyways, read "Leaf by Niggle", it's short enough that even your addled brain can handle it, and highly topical to this thread.

>>6176728
>>>/r/books

>>6176728
Tolkien is not literature; reported for off-topic posting.

>>6176728
>>6176733
>lol you never read Tolkien
Everyone and their cat has read tolkien. Which is why having read him doesn't make you not a pleb. And, again, using him as a source of serious philosophical insight, even if those insights are basically valid, is very pebeian

>>6176734
>if I post this exact same thing enough times, maybe he'll go!

>>6176742
>being this concerned with plebeian and other meaningless designations.

>>6176677
That's such an unoriginal thought though. Why attribute it to Tolkien? Duns Scotus said that shit in the 13th century.

>>6176750
At least one of the posters I was replying to used that himself, emphatically. I'm merely referencing their own distinction.

>>6176750
Remind me again who, in this argument, first said the word.

>>6176759
And that changes anything I said because...

>>6176771
How are we supposed to trust the faculty of reason in such a blatant hypocrite?

>>6176733
The movies are better, fanboy. It's the same plot and characters, but Jackson is a better cinematographer than Tolkien is a prose stylist. Of course, Tolkien had the originality, but it's not a great story in the first place.

>>6176788
>The movies are better, fanboy
Irrelevant.

Like I said, read "Leaf by Niggle". It's a short story from 1939, so it's available online. It answers OP's question better than any of you clowns ever could.

P.S. No, the movies are not better. Whether you like Tolkien's prose styling or not, the movie blockbuster format cannot treat the gigantic layer of religious parable in Tolkien's writing.

>>6176754
>That's such an unoriginal thought though.
Of course it is. All serious thoughts are unoriginal.
> Why attribute it to Tolkien? Duns Scotus said that shit in the 13th century.
I didn't attribute it to Tolkien. I said that he develops this thought in great detail in fiction format, which is true.

Or do you know of any other modern authors who treat the idea of God, beauty and art seriously?

>>6176841
>Tolkien is super meaningful, for realz guise
Ok I can hardly contain my urge to talk about silly headgear and badly groomed facial hair, and this rarely happens to me, are you happy now?

>>6175928
You think that's funny, answering a question that's important not only to the individual but also to the whole of humanity, perhaps even to those alien beings who occasionally visit us? I think you should aim higher if you really wish to bring down the mean intelligence of the mankind. Why not go the whole hog and claim that Hitler was in fact racist? Think before you type.

>>6176850
OK, so what do you think of "Leaf by Niggle"? Talk to me, let me hear your meaningful critique. Feel free to include fedora reaction images, as long as you talk about the work and not me.

>>6176847
No modern author treats it seriously because only Tolkien tier idiots still believe fairy tails outside of dogmatized society.
inb4 hat meme

>>6176895
> "Only idiots believe in God"
At first I wanted to answer your post with a biting witticism, but then I saw "fairy tails" and decided to not respond to trolls.

>>6176055
He was probably trying to point out that beauty is subjective. As you said, beauty is by definition something you enjoy, but creating something you consider beautiful doesnt have to mean that others will find it beautiful too.

>>6176777
Not that guy, but didnt you just say the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy?

>>6175927
Why did you choose the word masturbation? What does it have to do with appreciating beauty for the sake of beauty?

>>6175927
Is being a faggot for the sake of it mental retardation?

>>6176860
I think you missed his point

>>6175927
Becoming passionate about doing so is masturbation. Letting something unfold naturally isn't.

Humans just being human and naturally creating isn't intellectual masturbation. From my vantage point, I shit for the sake of shitting, that isn't masturbation either.

>>6175927

I don't know. This is actually a really hard question to answer. My first reaction was to say "no," but after thinking about it a little more I'm not so certain about that.

I do think there are great works of art that don't have any political or moral content. However, I feel that in most cases, these works are at least conveying some statement about human nature. Most great paintings raise some type of 'theme' or 'issue', most great music explores a range of emotions. So it seems like having a theme is important.

One interesting possible counter-example is dance. I find with ballet, even though it's "supposed" to tell a story, you never really end up following it, and the appeal ends up basically just being how "pretty" the dancing is. Yet I don't find this masturbatory, I sense some kind of profundity in good dance, even though it's hard to articulate. Maybe it's more related to athletics than to art?

>>6177015
Probably explains why nobody wants to buy my poo sculptures tbh.

>>6176121
what else should?

>>6175927
Yes, but calling it masturbation doesn't make it lose any of its value.
People always use masturbation to negatively connote isolation or self-indulgence, when really its a positive process of self-discovery. Keeps testicular cancer at bay too

>>6176860
*boops ur nos*