http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/a-science-of-literature/ Perhaps one day there will be no argument between /lit/ and /sci/?

File: 17 KB, 379x214, 1288748161405.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:29:10 2010 No.1329482 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/a-science-of-literature/

Perhaps one day there will be no argument between /lit/ and /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:31:10 2010 No.1329484 this is dumb as hell

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:33:10 2010 No.1329485 >>1329484 thank you for your outstanding contribution and insight. i see that you read the entire article and its accompanying comments section in an impressive two minutes.

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:37:10 2010 No.1329490

if anyone wants to actually read the article and subsequent debate (in which one of the writers referenced in the article even weighs in) and offset the lazy knee-jerking teenager who sage'd above, feel free to let your voice be heard.

personally i think this can lead to a pretty cool school of literary criticism (as mentioned in the article marxism or gender reading did before) wherein interpretation is backed by quantification.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:38:10 2010 No.1329492 >>1329490 please stop trolling buddy

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:44:10 2010 No.1329500 File: 73 KB, 400x360, 1274621129186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1329492 cool, another shitbrain stifling an exchange of ideas on /lit/! don't you have a "post your favorite" thread to report to?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:47:10 2010 No.1329503 >>1329500 you aren't exactly helping anyone either by just posting a dumb link and expecting people to talk about it without providing your own retarded ideas. the laziest way to make a thread, and the laziest way to troll

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 08:55:10 2010 No.1329508

>>1329503

the fuck? i posted an interesting, timely link (especially considering the daily debates on this board), voiced my support of further research into it because of its potential to create a new mode of lit crit and while you just sage'd and dismissed the possibility without even explaining why and I'M the one who's lazy and trolling?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:00:10 2010 No.1329513 >>1329508 You can't expect to spark an interesting thread by throwing a link and a catchy phrase. This isn't reddit bro.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:04:10 2010 No.1329518 >>1329513 okay man, i'll compose a standard 3 page essay, complete with my own research, in response to the article so as to facilitate a discussion here. i trust that you all will do the same in response to my essay.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:08:10 2010 No.1329520 >>1329518 A paragraph or two would be sufficient. (Should it have been 'will be sufficient' or is 'would be sufficient' good enough??)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:09:10 2010 No.1329521 >>1329513 i know, reddit's fun

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:16:10 2010 No.1329526

>>1329518

listen, i can't think of another way that the study of literare is going to develop without becoming more quantifiable.

the thing (or problem) with postmodernism was that it examined the world as a self-aware entity, fracturing reality. my personal theory is that reality itself has followed suit by becoming ironically self-aware and fractured beyond any recognition or singular understanding. postmodernism as both an artform and ideology altered the fabric of our world--that's why i consider writers like DFW or lethem or franzen to be realists instead of late postmodernists or post-postmodernists.

that being said, what else can you do without adding another layer of self awareness to a thing that's already self aware of its self awareness? well, you quantify it. you force singularities to emerge through scientific analysis. that's why i think this is such a compelling idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 09:53:10 2010 No.1329551 This shit is retarded. OK, you measured if western lit is more sexist than non-western lit. Now what? Why is this important? You still have to fall back to the retarded ocean of shit that is theory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:07:10 2010 No.1329571 >>1329551 i think that was just an early example of the possibilities of the technology. by the way, that measurement that you cited IS important

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:20:10 2010 No.1329581 >>1329571 OK then, if you say so it must be true.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:22:10 2010 No.1329583 Wittgenstein regarded the notion of a science of aesthetics as ridiculous I am inclined to agree

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:25:10 2010 No.1329586 >>1329583 do you do everything wittgenstein tells you to do?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:27:10 2010 No.1329589 >>1329583 researchers have already unlocked the science behind what we consider beautiful in a human face. suck it wittgenstein

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:28:10 2010 No.1329590

>>1329586

No just my mam

Also, idk maybe the closest thing to a science, and I mean an actual science (as if there ever existed sch a thing) instead of the bunch of opinion polls OP is referencing, of literature was structuralism and look how that turned

transcendental signifieds fucking everywhere

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:28:10 2010 No.1329593 >>1329583 that's a cool little namedrop but we're talking about critical analysis, not personal taste

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:29:10 2010 No.1329596 >>1329589 That is so stupid I don't even know where to do I start where do I begin

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:31:10 2010 No.1329597 >>1329596 you mean the research is stupid or using the example to defend the use of science with what is traditional understood to be unquantifiable is stupid?

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:31:10 2010 No.1329598 >>1329593 Everything I have said applies equally as well next plz

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:32:10 2010 No.1329600 >>1329598 would you mind not being obscure and actually explaining yourself?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:33:10 2010 No.1329601

>>1329597

Aesthetics as a field is much more complex than a discussion of what we genetically predisposed towards. that is not quite what aesthetics is about, although that is contestible if you want to be a pencil-pushing tightarse about it.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:35:10 2010 No.1329603

>>1329600
Maybe, I don't have a lot of patience for people who use words like namedrop, it is really as if they are trying to excuse themselves for being ignorant and incapable of picking up the line of thought you are quite sincerely suggesting. What don't u understand brah?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:35:10 2010 No.1329604 >>1329601 being a pencil pushing tightass is the entire point of science

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:37:10 2010 No.1329606 >>1329604 Yes well, treating the subject like that is completely deficient. No-one's genetically predisposed to consider Ulysses a fuckin opus fagnum but here we are

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:38:10 2010 No.1329609

>>1329603

i meant that you mention wittgenstein but he was talking about the aesthetics of personal taste...ie what is beauty, why do we consider art art, etc. this is different from say, finding marxist themes or gender bias in a text or, as you mentioned, finding sign/signifier combinations.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:39:10 2010 No.1329610 >>1329609 k bro I wasn't consciously trying to link Wittgenstein to Deconstruction don't get your knickers in a twist

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:41:10 2010 No.1329611

>>1329606

>No-one's genetically predisposed to consider Ulysses a fuckin opus fagnum but here we are

for the third time: it isn't about personal taste

however, if we were to talk about the devices from ulysses...say for example chapter 14 wherein joyce reproduced the gestation of the english language--science could establish that connection.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:43:10 2010 No.1329612 >>1329609 The latter is completely pointless without the former, though. If it has no implications on aesthetics, then finding marxist themes or whatever is a pointless masturbatory exercise. Which it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:48:10 2010 No.1329618 >>1329612 one doesn't extract themes to determine whether or not a work of literature is good--one extracts themes or draws connections to enrich their understanding of it

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:48:10 2010 No.1329617

>>1329611

>for the third time: it isn't about personal taste
for the third time: it applies equally as well, and protip: personal taste is what it is reducible to

>however, if we were to talk about the devices from ulysses...say for example chapter 14 wherein joyce reproduced the gestation of the english language--science could establish that connection.

what connection what are you talking about; how is that even a matter for science as opposed to history or some other bullshit field the have made up

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:50:10 2010 No.1329622

>>1329618
>one doesn't extract themes to determine whether or not a work of literature is good--one extracts themes or draws connections to enrich their understanding of it

most retarded dogmatic thing I have heard on the board in perhaps a week

how does this enrich you understanding of a text more than someone who does not do this?

inb4 presumptions, value-judgements. ideology

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:51:10 2010 No.1329624

>>1329617

>protip: personal taste is what it is reducible to

i guess we just disagree

>what connection what are you talking about; how is that even a matter for science as opposed to history or some other bullshit field the have made up

i'm just using it as an example of something that could have been quantified and elucidated by science via formulas or databases or whatever...scientific methods. who knows what we DON'T know because we have yet to examine it via those lenses.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 10:52:10 2010 No.1329627 >>1329622 how does understanding the context or background or intended purpose of anything enrich anything?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 10:58:10 2010 No.1329629

>>1329627
we're not talking about "anything" we're talking about literary texts.

We're not talking about enrichment on its own, we're talking about enriching understanding (you kind of left that bit out you fucking myopic asshole)

If you pull this rhetorical subject-changing bullshit on me in order to save your stupid ass from further humiliation again I will ignore you

>>	onionring !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Dec 3 10:59:10 2010 No.1329630 science wins yet again. lol literature

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:00:10 2010 No.1329631 >>1329629 you need to relax

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:00:10 2010 No.1329632

>>1329624
>i guess we just disagree
that is a lovely way of saying you're plugging your ears to the self-evident truths I am espousing

>i'm just using it as an example of something that could have been quantified and elucidated by science via formulas or databases or whatever...scientific methods.
>using subjective socio-culturally conditioned data that amounts to ideology for supposedly objective formulas
sounds good bro

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:04:10 2010 No.1329637 >>1329632 wait...are you arguing against linguistics now?

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:06:10 2010 No.1329640 >>1329637 Sure why not, scratch it off as yet another stupid language-game or point out a bunch of eskimos who have twenty words for snow, whatever you feel you can argue better against bro

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:07:10 2010 No.1329642 >>1329640 Also linguistics is ideology and logocentric I don't even know why I bothered to make that last post

>>	onionring !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Dec 3 11:11:10 2010 No.1329646 File: 19 KB, 258x306, 1279628775772.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1329617 >implying personal tastes don't reduce to neural processes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:14:10 2010 No.1329649 >>1329642 and i'm the dogmatic one...

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:15:10 2010 No.1329651 File: 19 KB, 204x239, intellectual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1329646 >implying correlation is causation >implying neural processes don't reduce to a package of non-physical material synchronised to physical reality by God

>>	onionring !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Dec 3 11:18:10 2010 No.1329656 >>1329651 ok that was a poor attempt.

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:18:10 2010 No.1329657

>a bunch of eskimos who have twenty words for snow

Straw man. Admittedly weak hypothesis, acknowledged by the linguistic community. Pretty much a famous case in this respect, as well.

It's okay if you want to try to destroy linguistics from the inside out -- infest and infect it-- with your theory or anti-theory. Whatever it is exactly that you claim to practice or observe, please, just don't use such foolish examples to do so.

Sometimes I swear you're drinking while typing your thoughts.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:23:10 2010 No.1329670

>>1329656
On your part or mine onionbro?
Also, chinese rooms and wiring like over 9000 people up with individual tasks to perform equating to a brain. I can't remember whether you are a functionalist or an identity theorist.

>>1329657
>Straw man. Admittedly weak hypothesis, acknowledged by the linguistic community. Pretty much a famous case in this respect, as well.
Yeah yeah yeah.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:29:10 2010 No.1329678 File: 7 KB, 131x170, reporter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] soooo....can we use science to examine books or not?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:33:10 2010 No.1329682 >>1329678 Yes, but you can't produce anything useful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 11:36:10 2010 No.1329684 >>1329682 fine, i give up. i agree with deep & edgy: no objective truth to art..any methods of scientific measurement would already be polluted by subjective data and presumptions. wahhhh!

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 11:42:10 2010 No.1329690

>>1329684
>no objective truth to art
That is not my position, least of which is because three out of five of those words are useless for me

I have shit up this thread quite enough though, you guys can maybe argue it out amongst yourselves some more

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 12:05:10 2010 No.1329719 >>1329690 >That is not my position, least of which is because three out of five of those words are useless for me you are truly, truly an impossible person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 12:06:10 2010 No.1329722 >>1329690 fucking pedantic pain in the ass. you must be a real joy at parties.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 12:09:10 2010 No.1329728 >>1329722 aaaaaand that about caps this thread off! good night, folks! thanks for playing!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 14:38:10 2010 No.1330028 this thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 14:55:16 2010 No.1330070 Is it just me or is there developing some kind of roughly cycle where every hund

Anonymous Fri Dec 3 15:00:10 2010 No.1330075

Remember when Positivism came around in the 19th century and said the same thing? Or the 18th century thinkers that thought Reason could handle anything?

Is this going to become a regular thing in the western world? Every 100 years reductionism becomes really popular and then fades away when people notice it's limitations

>>	Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP Fri Dec 3 15:01:10 2010 No.1330078 File: 16 KB, 450x275, Dale cooper bemused.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1330028 >14:38 >>1329728 >12:09 really?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 15:26:10 2010 No.1330131 I'm really just wondering how something like this would be implemented. The article itself seems very, very vague on the specifics (though I understand it's just a general idea, and thus isn't supposed to be specific).

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 15:28:10 2010 No.1330137 lol those zeitgeist faggots are at it again

>>	BrianHerbert !!wGkD+vOhZGf Fri Dec 3 15:32:10 2010 No.1330145 File: 8 KB, 216x281, maclachlan_dune1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1330078

onionring !Rrxa7zePwI Fri Dec 3 15:36:10 2010 No.1330151

>>1329670
do you even have to ask.
simple mind physicalism would tell you that there is nothing else besides the physical processes, even in your subjective agency fluff. cra is not going to help you here at all, and in all lieklihood you are not interpreting cra correctly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 3 15:46:10 2010 No.1330171 >>1329690 You are an idiot. That is a universal objective truth btw

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Fri Dec 3 16:08:10 2010 No.1330212
File: 32 KB, 333x500, skepticism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1330151
>there is nothing else besides the physical processes
what physical processes? That is a lovely castle made of sand onionbling maybe you should think bigger here

>>1330171
I'm the best, I am the best

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature