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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 238 KB, 690x518, ew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7113782 No.7113782 [Reply] [Original]

P1. We judge the hackiness of an artist by the beauty of their work

P2. The some places in the world look pretty good, other places looked rushed, some are just plain unsightly

C1: God is pretty much a hack

P3: Perfection is a necessary predicate for God

C2: God is not Perfect, as he is a hacky artist

C3: God does not exist

>> No.7113799

>>7113782
Well meMed sir

>> No.7113801

>>7113782
God can be a hack without being nonexistent. More like you are a hack for having a shit definition of what "god" is.

Greek gods were flawed as fuck.

>> No.7113822
File: 57 KB, 520x390, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7113822

>>7113782
okay, i'll bite
>P1
"hackiness": what does that mean? does it mean not creative? not original? also, this premise precludes the importance of intention behind an artist's work, judging solely based on subjective interpretation

>P2
are you suggesting that there exists an objective aesthetic standard, and that if there is, you have complete knowledge of it? by all means, share with the class

for instance, in your picture, there are trillions of microbes that remain invisible to the naked eye. do you deny that their invisible dance is worthy of appreciation, or can you not contemplate this at all?

>P3
perfection by what standard? the root of the word is facio, to make, and per-, thorougly. etymologically, perfection = completion, in that you can't add more. god's perfection, by this definition, has no relationship to creation, only to the innate quality of god itself (unless you're conceding that god is creation, which from the artist/hack parallel, you aren't)

>tl;dr try taking logic 102, maybe you'll learn modality