/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1373187]

The academic study of literature has contributed absolutely nothing to the world.

[Anonymous No.1373194]

Neither has your post on 4chan or anything you have done with your life. I don't particularly care for the academic study of literature either.

[Anonymous No.1373205]

>>1373194
>Neither has your post on 4chan or anything you have done with your life.
My post on 4chan was a simple declarative sentence. The academia surrounding literature is much larger, much more tedious, much more obfuscatory, and claims much higher things about itself than my post is or does.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373218]

Troll thread general

[Anonymous No.1373216]

people in academics are takers and thats all they ever can be. they can only contribute cliches and societal morality. they are worthless

i agree op

[Anonymous No.1373225]

>mfw I studied the subject for free, because I enjoy it and genuinely wanted to learn more
>mfw this is the best reason to study anything
>mfw the OP is inexplicably butthurt over my decisions, which have absolutely no impact on his life

Also, you're probably one of those faggots that think culture is worthless. gb2/sci/

[Anonymous No.1373240]

>>1373187
I hate academic literary criticism, but 'contribution to the world' is the wrong thing to expect from literature in general.

[Anonymous No.1373263]

>>1373225
Why would I have any objection to people who study literature for fun? My objection is to the notion that literary criticism is something serious and/or valuable when it's really just a more fashionable kind of punditry.

>>1373240
Literature contributes pleasure to those who partake in it, and that's worth something.

[Anonymous No.1373273]

>>1373263

>Literature contributes pleasure to those who partake in it, and that's worth something.

So does heroin. In fact, a heck of a lot more pleasure.

[Anonymous No.1373277]

>>1373273
i do heroin AND read literature

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373280]

>'contribution to the world' is the wrong thing to expect from literature in general.

Art is man's greatest contribution to the world.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373284]

>Literature contributes pleasure to those who partake in it, and that's worth something.
>and that's worth something.

No it isn't.

For this reason:
>So does heroin. In fact, a heck of a lot more pleasure.

[Anonymous No.1373288]

>>1373273
Well, heroin is worth something too.

[Anonymous No.1373292]

Pleasure =/= Joy.

[Anonymous No.1373293]

>>1373280
Bullshit. Art is secular religion.

[Anonymous No.1373295]

ITT: people who don't first classify the context of worth (utility, pleasure, etc) and then disagree with the numerous and varying exemplifications of the ambiguous ' worth'.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373298]

>>1373293
>hurr durr, clearly all this technology brought about by enlightened rationalism is our greatest contribution. Even though it serves only hedonistic ends and ravages the very world it's supposed to "contribute to", whereas art transforms the world into something beautiful, herpy derp.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373304]

>>1373295
Stop trying to define the terms of our frivolous conversation to conform to your own understanding of things. We don't want to speak like you, it makes us ugly.

[Anonymous No.1373313]

>>1373298
Nothing there is a refutation of my point, beyond the fact that you're clearly butthurt that technology has measurable value in the world and has objectively contributed to creating better living conditions whereas art is only as valuable as the person looking at it thinks it is.

[Anonymous No.1373317]

>>1373280
Oh, I agree. I was assuming a utilitarian definition of contribution.

[Anonymous No.1373330]

>Reading The Great Gatsby
>The Jew owns a business called "The Swastika Holding Company"
>book published three years before Hitler even attempted the Beer Hall Putsch

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373331]

>>1373313
>Nothing there is a refutation of my point

You didn't even make one. Calling names is not "a point".

>beyond the fact that you're clearly butthurt that technology has measurable value in the world

Yeah, my computer is worth 88.911 value points

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL,

>and has objectively contributed to creating better living conditions

Yeah, better living conditions for people to live decadently. What's that worth?

>whereas art is only as valuable as the person looking at it thinks it is.

You seem to like technology because it allows us to reproduce/survive better. So what's this great contribution you speak of then? Man's greatest contribution to the world is to perpetuate it's own existence?
Survival is just a means to an end. We survive and reproduce that we may accomplish and create things of value. Things such as art.

[Anonymous No.1373332]

>>1373330

fuck had the wrong tab open, pretend that never happend.

[Anonymous No.1373336]

>>1373313
Valuing food is exactly as subjective as valuing a book or a painting. If you call everything but survival-aids frivolous, that's just your way of taking pride in your thrifty poverty; I'd imagine you're either from a slum or some peasant town.

[Anonymous No.1373367]

>>1373331
>You didn't even make one. Calling names is not "a point".
I think the implications of "secular religion" is pretty clear, and nothing in that phrase is a pejorative. You're just butthurt.

>Yeah, my computer is worth 88.911 value points
Laugh facetiously all you want, the fact remains that the effect of technology on the world is quantifiable. Art has always and will always be around, can be made by anyone to communicate anything, and no movement in art has measurable affected the quality of living of any people in any way.

>Yeah, better living conditions for people to live decadently. What's that worth?
You seem to complain about thing you're not giving up yourself. If your decadent lifestyle is so worthless, get off 4chan and do something productive with yourself.

>You seem to like technology because it allows us to reproduce/survive better. So what's this great contribution you speak of then? Man's greatest contribution to the world is to perpetuate it's own existence?
Living is what people enjoy doing, and I'm no different. People also enjoy creating, and memes reproduce themselves and mutate as much as our flesh does, and it's those memes that separates people from most other animals and makes being alive particularly exciting.

>Survival is just a means to an end. We survive and reproduce that we may accomplish and create things of value. Things such as art.
If you assert that art has value, then provide evidence to that effect.

[Anonymous No.1373373]

>>1373336
>Valuing food is exactly as subjective as valuing a book or a painting.
No. One has a stated purpose that it can measurably be said to achieve or not. Art has no purpose and nothing can measure its success or lack of it.

>If you call everything but survival-aids frivolous, that's just your way of taking pride in your thrifty poverty; I'd imagine you're either from a slum or some peasant town.
I agree with you that the culture of art is typically the privilege of the wealthy to dictate and play with.

[Anonymous No.1373376]

>>1373194

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373383]

>>1373367
>I think the implications of "secular religion" is pretty clear

No it isn't.

>the fact remains that the effect of technology on the world is quantifiable.

Then quantify it.

>no movement in art has measurable affected the quality of living of any people in any way.

Art is not designed to affect quality of living. Art arises out of quality of living; those who live best produce the best art. But if you do want an example of someone benefitting from art look up Wittgenstein, a man who would probably have killed himself like his similarly afflicted brothers if not for music.

>You seem to complain about thing you're not giving up yourself. If your decadent lifestyle is so worthless, get off 4chan and do something productive with yourself.

A man can't escape his culture, it's ingrained within him. I am as decadent as the world I have grown in.

>Living is what people enjoy doing, and I'm no different. People also enjoy creating, and memes reproduce themselves and mutate as much as our flesh does, and it's those memes that separates people from most other animals and makes being alive particularly exciting.

Pleasure as the highest value culminates into this ultimatum:
Men strapped into machines, living in virtual realities that are eternally blissful and free of suffering.
Suffering can be good. Better to be a sick Van Gogh than a healthy anonymous, never to be remembered.

>If you assert that art has value, then provide evidence to that effect.

It's value is self-evident. Evidence is not required.

[Anonymous No.1373386]

>>1373367
>>If you assert that art has value, then provide evidence to that effect.
If you assert that being different from other organisms is what makes life exciting, then provide evidence to that effect.
Also, your mode of locution is statistically proven to be categorised as having the qualities popularly referred to as turgid and constipated. It's as if you think using latinate words puts armour on your thoughts. The fact remains that your blowharditivity is qualitatively measurable.

[Anonymous No.1373390]

As a society progresses past the infantile stages of development its populus grows more dense. Professions centered around utility and that are generally close to the heart of 'survival' are those positions which the most importance is placed. eventually those professions are filled and with that actualization new professions, which do not provide utility, are able to be formed. Hence things such as artist, writer, etc are able to exist in these dense/developed societies.

The creative arts do not aid in mans survival, get over it. However, I would argue the presence of benefits regarding art's effects on an individuals psychology.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373397]

>>1373390
> As a society progresses past the infantile stages of development its populus grows more dense. Professions centered around utility and that are generally close to the heart of 'survival' are those positions which the most importance is placed. eventually those professions are filled and with that actualization new professions, which do not provide utility, are able to be formed. Hence things such as artist, writer, etc are able to exist in these dense/developed societies.

Yeah, and then the population gets too dense and the people too sickly.
And then we get this.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373401]

Modern world don't ask why
Cause modern world will build things high

[Anonymous No.1373404]

>>1373373
>>No. One has a stated purpose that it can measurably be said to achieve or not. Art has no purpose and nothing can measure its success or lack of it.
What happens when your hamburger tastes of shit, but is still measurably nutritious? I suppose Mr. Droopy Stoic here would chomp down with a very serious expression on his face, determined to allot scientifically verifiable merit to this successful hamburger and not be frivolous, like the rich, who are not content with thrift-nirvana or with merely not dying.

[Anonymous No.1373422]

>>1373390
Like Greek rhapsodes. Presumably their stories about people turning into trees and the Skyfather angrily stuffing babies back into the Earthmother until one of the babies castrated him taught people how to administer their economic holdings more efficiently.

[Anonymous No.1373442]

>>1373383
>No it isn't.
Then I'll spell it out for you: Like religion, art is a thing of which none of its claims or assertions are falsifiable and it has no effect upon the world beyond how it affects those who ascribe value to it. It is secular, in that it doesn't make claims about the divinity of supernatural entities. All clear?

>Then quantify it.
Higher life expectancy. Higher quality of life. Higher percentage of literate adults. Perpetually more accurate cosmologies. Perpetually less violence between people as technology and civilization advances.

>Art is not designed to affect quality of living. Art arises out of quality of living; those who live best produce the best art. But if you do want an example of someone benefitting from art look up Wittgenstein, a man who would probably have killed himself like his similarly afflicted brothers if not for music.
Art is valuable to people, I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying no artwork is itself valuable apart from the value people see in it.

>A man can't escape his culture, it's ingrained within him. I am as decadent as the world I have grown in.
You apparently have managed to escape enough to bitch about it. Or are you simply being constrained by a culture of self-laceration?

>Pleasure as the highest value culminates into this ultimatum:
>Men strapped into machines, living in virtual realities that are eternally blissful and free of suffering. Suffering can be good. Better to be a sick Van Gogh than a healthy anonymous, never to be remembered.
Van Gogh's contribution to the world is art people find pleasure in looking at. Art IS pleasure, it's not inherently noble, and it's beyond arrogant to think it is.

>It's value is self-evident. Evidence is not required.
To say that your position is axiomatic is to say you've never examined the foundations of what you consider the most valuable contribution of humans to the world.

[Anonymous No.1373454]

>>1373383

And here's the fork. If art is self-evidently good, then increasing access to art, affordability of art, artistic context, media for creation and distribution of art, and time for consideration of art, is self-evidently an improvement in quality of life. And all of this is thanks largely to technology.

I'm not someone that believes (in a doctrinaire way, at least) that technology is in and of itself always positive. But come on, if art is man's highest endeavor, then technology has measurably improved every aspect of art (perhaps, besides, the human spirit) a thousandfold from the Middle Ages, or even the highest cultures of antiquity.

[Anonymous No.1373466]

>>1373442
Useful things make useful things make useful things make Jack a dull boy. I'm going to drop out of the argument since you seem content and proud to chase your own tail, but I'd like to suggest you read some Bataille.

[Anonymous No.1373490]

>Well, heroin is worth something too.

Yeah, ten bucks a bag, in this neighborhood.

>no movement in art has measurable affected the quality of living of any people in any way.

Well, Abraham Lincoln did say to Harriet Beecher Stowe that a novel she wrote caused the US Civil War. Then again, Mrs Stowe claimed she didn't write the novel, God wrote it and she merely took his dictation. One way or the other, art is capable of having real-world effects in the same way that religion does. Whether *good* art is able to do so (or whether only propaganda is able to do it, and the relation between propaganda and art) is a different question entirely.

[Anonymous No.1373496]

>>1373386
I use the words that express what I want to communicate. I'm not making them up, I'm taking what was given to me by the language I was born into. But anyways, I'm not advertising my form, I'm employing it to express content, so feel free to address that, or if you'd like we can devolve into nothing more than flaming each other's manner of writing.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373510]

>Like religion, art is a thing of which none of its claims or assertions are falsifiable

Not only do you show a bad understanding of what classes as religion, but you also seem to have the bizzare view that art is based on making prescriptive statements. I think what you mean is moralising, which is a tendency in some art but by no means its basis.

>and it has no effect upon the world beyond how it affects those who ascribe value to it.

What is an "effect upon the world"? Carbon dioxide emissions might be our biggest "effect upon the world". What is your point? That it only provides pleasure to a select few? Are you again referring back to the notion that the largest contributions man has provided "to the world" are the one that increases man's own pleasure?

>Higher life expectancy. Higher quality of life. Higher percentage of literate adults. Perpetually more accurate cosmologies. Perpetually less violence between people as technology and civilization advances.

Dude, you do realise that "quantify" means to assign a number, right?

>Higher percentage of literate adults.

This one is particularly amusing. What is so beneficial about having literate adults if they only scorn literature for it's lack of utility? There's nothing inherently pleasurable about being literate, so why should this be an achievement in that pleasure-fixated valuation of yours?

>Art IS pleasure, it's not inherently noble, and it's beyond arrogant to think it is.

Art is not mere pleasure seeking. Art is creation, and that is where it's nobility lies.

>To say that your position is axiomatic is to say you've never examined the foundations of what you consider the most valuable contribution of humans to the world.

To say my position is axiomatic is to say I have never examined it's foundations. So, to say my position is axiomatic is to say I have never examined it's axioms?
What are you trying to say?

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373521]

>>1373454
>technology has increased access to art, affordability of art, artistic context, media for creation and distribution of art, and time for consideration of art
>therefore art has gotten better

>If art is self-evidently good . . . is self-evidently an improvement in quality of life. And all of this is thanks largely to technology.
>implying art is only good if it provides improvements in quality of life.

[Anonymous No.1373534]

>>1373510

>>Higher life expectancy. Higher quality of life. Higher percentage of literate adults. Perpetually more accurate cosmologies. Perpetually less violence between people as technology and civilization advances.
>Dude, you do realise that "quantify" means to assign a number, right?
And "this numerical quantity is higher" is a quantitative attributes, dumbass. Not who you're responding to, but just about everything he has mentioned has been extensively studied in the social sciences in the context of an undeniable, gigantic, measurable improvement from just 200 years ago, much less 2000 years ago. These are acknowledged facts about how things are, and if you want to look them up it is two seconds in google. Life expectancy is particularly glaring: If you're going to be skeptical of the life expectancy claim based ONLY on the fact that he didn't literally provide statistics, and continue to insist the value of art is "self-evident", then you are a poor troll and a worse debater. Get out.

[Anonymous No.1373537]

>>1373534

quantitative *statement, dumbass

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373543]

Let me try and quantify, "quality of life".

The average quality of life of the citizenry of a given country is the amount of coca-cola consumed, in litres, per capita of that citizenry, per annum.

[Anonymous No.1373548]

>>1373521
>>technology has increased access to art, affordability of art, artistic context, media for creation and distribution of art, and time for consideration of art
>>therefore art has gotten better

Nope, that's not what I said, but if you want a helpful summary: If you don't think increasing a thousandfold virtually every part of art, including the number and duration and affordability to almost everyone on earth, then you have absolutely no credibility.

>>If art is self-evidently good . . . is self-evidently an improvement in quality of life. And all of this is thanks largely to technology.
>>implying art is only good if it provides improvements in quality of life.
>implying you have enough reading comprehension to narrate to others what a statement is implying

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373549]

>>1373534
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing about how long people live these days and not the value of art.
Regardless, I asked him to quantify technologies "effect on the world". Something which he has yet to do.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373558]

>>1373548
>>1373548
>If you don't think increasing a thousandfold virtually every part of art, including the number and duration and affordability to almost everyone on earth, then you have absolutely no credibility.

>implying this still means that art has gotten better.

The reason why I suggest it implies this is because you originally seemed to want to explain to me how technology has improved art, or at least that technology has provided "more art" and tthat this somehow is an improvement.

You talk about "every part of art", and then you list things incidental to art (like it's "affordability") without saying anything about the quality of the art itself.
I don't care how much better art is provided to the people.

[Anonymous No.1373559]

>>1373543

That was a shitty attempt. How about: The total value (with respect to an fixed medium of exchange) of goods and services produced in a year. How about: The percentage of human beings that have access to affordable health care. How about: The percentage of people that live in subsistence or starvation conditions?

It's not an easy question, but your answer is frankly worse than trolling, because it ignores 100% of the scientific work, and even, failing that, manages to ignore 100% the social critiques leveraged at this work, all in favor of a cutesy one-liner. Which is, as this debate has gone on, all I can come to expect of you.

[Anonymous No.1373562]

Oh shit /lit/ we got trolled bad.

Regardless onto my point; the sciences serve only to extend humanity's understanding of the world; things which are permanent and unchanging (For now anyways, and for the physical laws anyways), but art and culture serve as humanity's method in which to understand itself as individuals, as groups and as a species. Science can explain why the world behaves in particular ways, but can it explain and describe why a human behaves as he would (and don't go spouting neuroscience, sociology or the ultimate and immediate causes; no one understands why we do such things in a complete manner)? Art gives substance to our existences and the things you enjoy are art; everything that you do for pleasure is art. Would you like to live in an enclosed cube with no furnishings, eat processed food with no flavour and spend your life doing your job and donating your sperm (Far more efficient than mating, mind you. If you're of a better stock, your genes will pass, no problem)? That may be very extreme, but that is the kind of life you're proposing.

Alright I got trolled 8/10, just cause I knew it was obvious.

[android No.1373571]

>>1373562
no, art really is useless. stop deluding yourself.

[Anonymous No.1373573]

>>1373558
>I don't care how much better art is provided to the people.

Yeah, except art that is sitting in a vault somewhere means jack shit to anyone except the person who created it, and art that is available to everyone is available to everyone. No, ignoring everything about art except the creative process is the sort of axiomatic fixation that has characterized your misunderstanding throughout this thread. And with that, I'm out, and I encourage you to actually think about this very hard, even if you don't come to the same conclusions I do.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373572]

>>1373559
Lol, I think you missed the point. It was to show that it is ridiculous to try and quantify "quality of life".
Actually, it wasn't really to show anything. I was just amusing myself.

[Anonymous No.1373579]

>>1373313

Technological development has contributent in constantly dying nature, and while this might sound as another 'tree-hugger', you must note the fact that if nature dies, so does mankind. Our current society is based on consumerism, which means that for it to work, people need to keep consumin, which means that new materia must be constantly made, or new ones developet, and that always takes a toll on nature.

Of course, there is other problems, like global warming and population growth, but part is our constant need for more comfort and society based on consumerism.

On a whole, as far as long-livety of Earth is considered, humans never learning to make this technology would have been way better. Of course, there is chances that another race would have developet same skills.

Only solutions at current state is radical cutting of different freedoms, rights like owning a licence and a car and right to birth as many children as one wants. These are of course extremely unpopular solutions, and thusly are doomed to fail, if there won't be some sudden 'awakenin' or some really good and charismatic politician.

As far as considerin 'argument' "Why are you here and not doing something constructive" etc, first of all, how can you know that I havent been doing something constructive today and now I am just relaxin? Secondly, I need computer for my studies (and internet connection).

Thanks.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373581]

>Yeah, except art that is sitting in a vault somewhere means jack shit to anyone except the person who created it, and art that is available to everyone is available to everyone.

No, but Mozart brought to a hundred people was always better than Miley Cyrus brought to a billion.
Now we cannot have a Mozart, because "art" and "artists" are too popular amongst the billions.

>I encourage you to actually think about this very hard,

I encourage you to think about this very hard:
>Pleasure as the highest value culminates into this ultimatum:
>Men strapped into machines, living in virtual realities that are eternally blissful and free of suffering.


>even if you don't come to the same conclusions I do.

Lol, don't kid yourself. You would love to convince everyone in the world to believe as you do.

[CheezPoofz !bXOmjBZB9I No.1373642]

Well at least technology helped bring us this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnapx502uQ#t=4m54s

[Anonymous No.1373697]

>>1373571

People like you are hopeless. Enjoy your highly "efficient" life as employee #000,731,451.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373721]

MOTHER WILL THEY TEAR YOUR LITTLE BOY APAAAAAARRRRTTT

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1373764]

nice trol bro, i agree.

[Anonymous No.1373779]

Art is what drives us forward and defines who we are. Science is secondary, a pragmatic means to an artistic end.

[Anonymous No.1373804]

>>1373779

Therefore artists are the only people truly alive, right? Is that the obvious subtext of your statement? Yes it is. Positing any sphere of life as "defining who we are" is incredibly reductive, and in this case frankly smacks of ignorance of the beauty of science and reasoning, and still manages to trivialize the non-artistic sources of art in the human condition.

[Anonymous No.1373805]

This thread is terrible. Behind the troll there is some kind of debate, though.

All I'll say is - quality of life can only be defined by happiness, in my humble view. Therefore, anything that contributes happiness to someone can be considered useful. You can't say that art doesn't contribute to people's happiness - that's a truth that's evident everywhere you look.

I'll also cautiously raise the point that a lot of modern inventions have been somewhat 'inspired' by works of science-fiction. Maybe literature and even film has some scientific value after all. You can't quantify the influence art has on the very thinking of people, and who's to say this influence won't lead to greater scientific discovery?

Oh and; 3/10 for getting a reply out of me, even if a half-assed one.

Oh and; sage for the trolling.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1373826]

the trol is overreaching against art in general, but it's worse to dismiss science and political activity in favor of art. so what if some aspie doesn't appreciate doodling, he's at the very least better than people obsessing over arts and are stuck up about it.

[Anonymous No.1373837]

>>1373721
dude, it's "mother will she tear your little boy apart". GOSH

[Anonymous No.1373841]

why is this thread so long? I despise you /lit/

[Anonymous No.1373849]

>>1373805

OP didn't say "literature has contributed absolutely nothing to the world", he said "The academic study of literature has contributed absolutely nothing to the world." Your point is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.1373851]

>>1373837

he's such a philistine, amirite?

[Anonymous No.1373858]

>>1373849
As if this thread hasn't turned into a stupid art vs science debate with little relevance to OP's statement anyway.

[Anonymous No.1373887]

>mfw correspondence theory of truth
>clearly hasn't read The Origin of the Work of Art by Heidegger

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373889]

>>1373887
this guy is fuckin magic

[Anonymous No.1373891]

Your mother has contributed absolutely nothing to the world.

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1373909]

correspondence is at least better than treehugger "logic" like this: >>1373579

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373916]

>>1373909
but onionking, that is a moronic misinterpretation of the crisis of modernity

[Anonymous No.1373917]

Edward Said contributed a lot to our understanding of the relationships between power and Culture. He might have spawned a lot of bullshiters and been wrong on a few small details but his analysis of the Culture of Empire and Imperialism holds up today and his background as an academic was lit studies.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373923]

>>1373916
*not what you yourself but what the idiot you linked to

>>1373917
yeah bro citing a nigger and gook apologist you are really saving this thread thanks a bunch there

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1373924]

>>1373916
is there a nonmoronic interpretation? i fail to see one

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1373942]

>>1373924
you're lucky i dont beat your fucking ass black and blue u wise-ass son of a bitch

[♥onionring♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1373948]

>>1373942
what happened to your skull symbols. they fit nicely with your posting profile.

[Anonymous No.1373971]

>>1373804
That's not the subtext at all; that was a conception of art as a higher form removed from the artist, even from humanity. Why would any supporting member in that be less than any other? And why does art have to come from the artist?

[Anonymous No.1374333]

>>1373923
Aye and calling yourself "Deep and Edgy" when you're a shallow ignorant twat does what exactly?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1374344]

>>1374333
Tells everyone that I am the best.

[Anonymous No.1374372]

>>1374344
Best at what exactly?

BTW bro, pro-tip, "Deep And Edgy" isn't something you call yourself, that is for others to say. When you do it it kind of gives the impression that you're neither.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1374388]

>>1374372
Not "best at", best.
Bro don't tell me what I am and am not.

[Anonymous No.1374390]

>>1374388
you are a little soldier, a little insect.

how does that make you feel sir

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1374399]

>>1374390
antsy

[Anonymous No.1374410]

>>1374399
what does that mean

[Anonymous No.1374430]

>>1374388
Nah bro, it actually doesn't. I can prove this very easily, I as a person would be included in the category of "everyone". I can tell you that I personally do not believe that you are "the best". Therefore calling yourself "Deep and Edgy" does not show everyone that you are the best.

So, how do you know if you are actually Deep and Edgy?:
1. Has anyone other than yourself, ever described you as Deep and Edgy
2. Has anyone ever reviewed a piece of work created by you and said that it was "Deep and Edgy", implicitly ascribing those qualities to its creator.

I'd bet good money the answer to both those questions is no.

[‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮Anonymous‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ No.1374440]

>>1374430
I've seen many of his posts on /lit/ and few the other day on /fa/. I will say that he is indeed "Deep & Edgy".

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1374450]

>>1374430
>I as a person would be included in the category of "everyone". I can tell you that I personally do not believe that you are "the best". Therefore calling yourself "Deep and Edgy" does not show everyone that you are the best.
I do not care about "everyone" amongst which you count yourself. I do not address myself to "everyone".

[Anonymous No.1374458]

>>1374440
And for all we know you're D&E samefaging.

[Anonymous No.1374466]

>>1374450
>I do not care about "everyone" amongst which you count yourself. I do not address myself to "everyone".
>>1374344
>Tells everyone that I am the best.

[Anonymous No.1374476]

>>1373225

I agreed with you until you said "go back to /sci/". You're as close-minded as the retard you just replied to.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1374543]

>>1374466
>>Tells everyone that I am the best.
Your inference, not mine.

[Anonymous No.1374612]

>>1374543
so what have you done today so far besides enjoying your time well spent on 4chan?

describe in details.

[Anonymous No.1374655]

>>1374543
>>1374543
>>1374543
>>1374543
>>1374543
So you're not blatantly contradicting yourself how exactly?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1375253]

>>1374612
uh well so far bro I just finished my essay

>>1374655
There has been no contradiction in whatever I have said

[Anonymous No.1376222]

>>1374543
its not an inference, its a direct quotation.

[ybrtax No.1376242]

>>1376222
lol he's pretending to be Brecker's statue you moran.

[Anonymous No.1376250]

>>1376242
>you moran