[ 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: 19 KB, 600x384, sad_frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15455024 No.15455024 [Reply] [Original]

Hard to put this in words, but how the fuck do you cope with understanding that literature, is essentially not a perfect medium to convey meaning. I have this same problem as a musician and other forms of art too. In essence, they are all imperfect mediums and they can never touch reality or 'truth' so to speak.

I cannot enjoy anything anymore. Literature, art, music, paintings. They are all imperfect medium, they have nothing to do with reality of things. Or is this schizophrenic anhedonia?

>> No.15455042

Nobody tell OP about Rorty please, he seems depressed already.

>> No.15455046

>>15455024
The only objective truth that exists is scientific facts

Anything else is just verisimilitude and art is a great way to convey the subjective meaning, why don't you enjoy it?

>> No.15455056

How do you know they are imperfect? You must you have access to true reality in order to verify this.

>> No.15455132

>>15455046
Kek

>> No.15455138

>>15455046
>>The only objective truth that exists is scientific facts

>> No.15455145

>>15455024
that's why it's literature and not a textbook. conveying meaning isn't its primary concern, what defines literature is the dominance of the poetic function of language, i.e the "how" of the text

>> No.15455283

>>15455024
The meaning people derive from music comes from the music itself and not from it being a representation of something else.

>> No.15455289
File: 203 KB, 1024x1024, 1590451088223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15455289

>The only objective truth that exists is scientific facts
>
>Anything else is just verisimilitude and art is a great way to convey the subjective meaning, why don't you enjoy it?

>> No.15455353

>>15455138
What other kind of objective truth exists?

>> No.15455377

>>15455353
How are scientific facts objective and how are they truth?

>> No.15455385

>>15455377
How the fuck are they not?

>> No.15455440

>>15455385
Can you please explain how? You affirmed it earlier

>> No.15455450

>>15455024
Stop being autistic, also music comes closer than anything else, as Satan himself was God's favorite musician

>> No.15455467

>>15455440
If semen comes in contact with an egg, there is probability of starting the process of a child being created

This is an objective truth

Now you explain your position

>> No.15455539

>>15455353
The truth you're referring to (scientific facts) will all be refuted in the future. Perhaps you have heard of the Copernican Revolution? Many more of these types of events will inevitably occur in the distant future. In this manner, your 'objective' truth is actually subjective to the people in this day and age.

>> No.15455555

>>15455467
What truth lies in that statement?

>> No.15455565

>>15455024
of course you're right OP.
let me make an assertoric proposition here.

the symbolization that literature entails on the paper is, of course, and ultimately, self-insufficient, inconsistent, decentered.

this is a matter of structure rather than content; and literature or what may be called verbal language is, of course, not the unique example of signs, vectors, and even any sort of communication or belief. I think you realize *this*, since you're also talking about art, music, paintings etc on the same level.

the crucial point imo is that there is no perfect medium for meaning, truth, reality, communication, or of whatever you want to be an obsessively perfectionist idealist. you sound nothing like a schizophrenic. it does look, though, obsessive, the modality or perspective in which you're speaking from. or maybe you're just being a hysterical kantian - i don't really know.

i suggest trying to differentiate the three heavyweight objects you're mentioning here from one another: meaning, truth, reality. all 3 of these are pretty big deals, separately, and most of the time, interwoven, entangled.

perhaps every single bigballs writer who came after late-freud would hate me for preaching suggestions, but let me still say this:

you don't have to or need to enjoy.

there is no perfection unless you find it, and as soon as you point to it, you'll find that this *perfect* will have tremendously disintegrated in reality already, with bits and pieces of truth everywhere. that's a good place imo to look for what the real may or may not be.

you can get over the "i cannot enjoy."
you're still alive.

it is certainly difficult to find any truth outside of the irreducible gap between appearances/symbolization and the real. clearly, you do have an interest in these literatures that you say you're sick of; you're still looking at it!
some would call these series and paradoxes continous points of genesis.

and for meaning, i do think it's either total submission (to christian god, to moneymaking, to despair; whatever you may find that has already floated your boat) - or you *make* meaning. it is inevitable. disavow or not; pain and pleasure have never been a simple complementation.
there's no end to meaning, reality or truth that will satisfy a perfect harmonious coupling of a medium and an object.
Nature does not work with an end in view.

>> No.15455569

>>15455555
Ejaculating in sweet pussy=baby

What argument can you possibly fucking use to refute this?

>> No.15455597

>>15455569
Refute what? You haven't proved objectivity or truth to any of that, nor did you provide an argument for that matter

>> No.15455617

>>15455056
you're articulating the common misconception of the thing-in-itself among all those who actually never read the kant.

>> No.15455626

>>15455597
Apparently you're fucking blind. (EJACULATION INTO PUSSY=CHANCE OF HAVING A BABY. IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY OF HAVING A BABY MY NIGGA??)

But here's a truth: "I think, therefore I am"

Go ahead, refute it

>> No.15455642

>>15455024
if you're in desperate need of an objective truth or meaning, your only option is religion

>> No.15455673

>>15455145
no to this as well.

your unfounded derridean claim here is that "there is no pure object-language, any language that would function as a purely transparent medium for the designation of pre-given reality" - which simply allows you to subordinate literature to rhetorics- which, by the way, may perhaps also be the single best summary of what the historical fascists have done at the time; and what benjamin calls aestheticizing politics, as the explanation of the way of the fascists in mid-century. this is why it's really simple for any fucktard to just go ahead and easily say trump is fascist, vlad is fascist etc today.

the whole derridean effort to write "poetically" is not poetry. it is a barely hidden acknowledgement of the fact that one is speaking from a safe position, a position not menaced by the decentered textual process. it is denial by way of total submission to some kind of artificial self-distance that the effort claims on every objective statement; claiming that one is always saying more or less something other than what it means to say.

there is no function or how that defines literature. your claim is just a sad excuse for a sad life, and won't make any depression better in any sort of way. if you're obstinate in your position, i suggest switching to more theology, and worshipping a god. that one is at least honest.

>> No.15455703

>>15455467

you're despicable in the fact that your blinded assertion of scientific truth still requires an adverb that is ***probably*** at the very first explanation you found yourself having to give.

I'm not even going to indulge you anon further, but I do appreciate the other anon's seemingly intransient argumentative patience with you.

>> No.15455717

>>15455626

oh and this cogito ergo sum has been refuted in so many ways literally since 1677 (ethica-spinoza) so noone is going to give you that account of a summary here on your impotent calls of obscene interrogations, idiot.

>> No.15455760

>>15455024
Being able to "touch the truth" and being enjoyable are two different things. Your mistake is assuming that art is supposed to be an end in itself rather than a means of getting pleasure, which leads you to being disappointed when it becomes apparent that it's only the latter and that it will never provide you with "meaning" or anything like that, because it just can't.

>> No.15455801

>>15455717
refute it then

>> No.15455807

>>15455642
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

>> No.15455816

>>15455801
your submissiveness is not a safe position my fat dude

>> No.15455820

>>15455673
>one is speaking from a safe position, a position not menaced by the decentered textual process
You can't have read Derrida closely and say this, to be fair. He is constantly re-adjusting his formulations as the text grows in vocabulary, concepts and images. Of course it's not poetry but it is trying to work with some awareness of it, of its role in understanding language.

>> No.15455826

>>15455816
>is asked to refute something
>Deflects

Yup, I'm thinking you're a retard

>> No.15455854

>>15455820
Exactly, derrida's a strict fetishist for an "other-language." I'm not saying that's not a contribution to critical thinking or whatever; I'm just saying that's what his contribution is.
The very demonstration that when stars align, you can be as big a deal by calmly abandoning yourself to the inifinite play of language/not-language. It's the hegelian concept of bad infinity: an endless quasi-poetical variation on the same theoretical assumption, a variation which does not produce anything new.

>> No.15455873

>>15455854
>a variation which does not produce anything new
Yes, just like a translation does/doesn't. You sound eagerly dismissive, anon.

>> No.15455874
File: 135 KB, 1080x1350, wow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15455874

>>15455565
while effort posting might be dead on /lit/, seing effort replysting at least once a week keeps this place alive for me. thx

>> No.15455939

>>15455024
Literary theory anon

>> No.15455975

>>15455353
>>15455539
all so-called "objective knowledge" in this world are jewish lies

>> No.15455982

>>15455975
>>>/pol/

>> No.15455991

>>15455873
If the translation in question is reducing rhetorical devices to external means which do not concern the signified contents, it is indeed the same illusion. I'm not arguing that the so-called poststructuralist literature renounces theoritical formulation for poeticism; on the contrary, its position is too theoretical in the sense that the distance which the continous self-commentary & constant subversion of what one was supposed to say literally exists only to embellish some basic theoretical positions; sublimating a certain pure-object (under the name of the signified), exchanging a safety of one's own position, ultimately affected in the way it externalizes affection to get itself rid of it. Kant was also making his way through a similar function of external reflection, but he was honest enough to stress more than enough times that the thing-in-itself is not cognized at all, and at the same this fundamental inability (according to him) does not affect in any way the truth of the appearances.

>> No.15456016

>>15455024

Anon, that is the point. Good art got multiple meanings and layers of complexity. Why? Because the more layers, the more universal it gets.

That is one of the reason why most religious texts are decent literature. They convey meaning to all types of people.

Then you might ask, then why I'm unable to relate to these works at this moment? You are changing, anon. Probably going to see things deeper from now on. Everyone goes through a phase like this, it is a good thing. Just don't let this consume you, those things can be a bit more hard than usual considering our current context.

>> No.15456034

>>15455046
lol STFU

>> No.15456041

>>15455991
>>15455991
>reducing rhetorical devices to external means
What? Why do you need to stick this process on Derrida? I guess it grounds the weird tangent you follow with.

>> No.15456064

>>15455024
every medium is like a different side of a prism, you dont get 'perfect' light you get countless shades of refraction. similarly the truth is your experiences, your inability to enjoy art is your not paying attention to your own experience, youre probably depressed and need to lift weights.

>> No.15457751

>>15455353
A bachelor is an umarried man
^that statement is objectively true based on meaning of words, no experimentation required, i.e. You can use logic to come to conclusions

>> No.15457769

>>15455801
cogito ergo pucci