[ 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: 96 KB, 400x300, english_literature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2825998 No.2825998[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/lit/, I come to you today with a serious request. I am facing a crisis over pursuing the arts (mainly writing, painting, poetry) as opposed to the sciences (mathematics, physics). Can you recommend any books/texts/essays that are persuasive in giving value to the arts as a perfectly wonderful pursuit, and not something 'fake' or useless. When placed against the logic and rationality of the natural sciences, the arts need a very good defense--and that's what I'm asking you for, in the hope that it will convince me of the value (of writing, say), and the value of the "truths" that are obtained through it.

Any short texts, essays, etc. will be fabulous. Even books that you think really bring out the value in arts (esp. literature) and are convincing. Or, if you have the time to, please write down your opinions and try and convince me? Thanks a lot, /lit/

>> No.2826007

"Man is the arbiter of his own values"

-Faulkner

>> No.2826005

Science has nothing to say about value. Value is completely, absolutely absent from any scientific paradigm.

There's no "science vs. art" - there's "art vs anti-art that pretends it's more 'scientific'."

>> No.2826012

Art is one of the unique Human activities with thousands and thousands of years of history and they need a defense from the natural sciences?

You can't even do science without writing; seems like a good defense to me. I suggest you just do whichever you honestly want to do. Double major if you have to.

>> No.2826019

" One of the most beautiful passages in the writings of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had always clung about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve—les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion—that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of this wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for art's sake, has most; for art comes to you professing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake."

>> No.2826043

Thanks guys, I really appreciate this.

>>2826005
I understand that you feel that "scientific" is a relative characteristic, but phenomena such as gravity, photosynthesis, etc. seem to be universal and absolute, unaffected by human interpretation---so wouldn't those 'truths' be more 'valuable', in an objective sense?

>>2826007
Very true

>>2826012
I see your point. Again, my dilemma is that, whether one 'writes down' science or not, scientific 'discoveries' seem to be very objective in the sense that they will continue to be true centuries after human civilization is extinct, and hence don't they seem to be of greater 'absolute importance'?? My dilemma is, is a 'natural,larger-that-human' activity', that is, scientific phenomena, more worth pursuing than simply 'human activity'?

>>2826019
Thanks, it really helps. I will reread my Rousseau

>> No.2826050

>>2826043
>so wouldn't those 'truths' be more 'valuable', in an objective sense?

No. Why would they be? Are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?

>> No.2826062

>>2826050
I am now, thanks. But I am not very convinced on what is it that makes it a 'fallacy', would you elaborate?

>> No.2826070

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Evolution_%28book%29

>> No.2826076

>>2826062

No descriptive claims (e.g. "triangles have three sides" or "the strength of gravitational attraction between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them") ever imply normative claims (e.g. "triangles are better than squares" or "we should act as though gravity existed.")

Hence, insinuating that they do is fallacious.

>> No.2826120

>>2826070
His ideas sound very appealing to me. Will read it as soon as I can, thanks a lot!

>>2826076
I see your point. But my gripe is that with these scientific phenomena, such as gravity, they seem to exist regardless of human perception, human observation, and will be true before and after humanity/language/perception. That is, if something exists before human existence and will probably exist after human existence, isn't it, by this very fact, more 'absolute' than anything WITHIN human existence? I know that all the human-related phenomena (art, literature, music, philosophy, politics) are many, and of course one cannot suggest that one is more important than the other. But something that is more 'general' or 'absolute' than within human experience and existence--wouldn't that be by its very nature more important than things within human experience and existence? By 'important' I mean more absolute, more universal, more general as a truth.

>> No.2826134

>>2826120

You're conflating science with natural phenomena. Science is just as much an activity as philosophy, art, and religion. They are tools and the tool is not identifiable with the object it is inspecting.

>> No.2826149

>>2826134

Basically, if the other studies don't exist beyond humanity, neither will science.

>> No.2826157

>>2826134
I completely agree. Now, my question is, aren't natural phenomena more worth investigation than human phenomena?

Again, my point is that human phenomena will come and go, will be subjective, will be more subject to interpretation, than natural phenomena.

(By 'worth', 'value', etc. I mean in the context of more absolute, more universal, more general...)

>> No.2826171

>>2826134
>But something that is more 'general' or 'absolute' than within human experience and existence--wouldn't that be by its very nature more important than things within human experience and existence?

No, it's not more important "by its very nature." It's more important - to you - because - you - have decided that things that are objective are more important than things that are subjective.

We can't convince you to change what you find valuable. What are you asking us for, exactly?

If you like science more than art, fine, but don't pretend that it's "intrinsically" more valuable because of your own biases and subjective judgments.

>> No.2826188

>>2826171
All I was asking for was for you guys to show me that it is, actually, only subjectively important. Thanks so far!

I gotta go now, thanks everyone! I know that I'm not the only one in my circle of 'literate' friends who has this dilemma, and hence I thought it would make an interesting discussion on /lit/. Thanks!

>> No.2826189

>>2826188
>All I was asking for was for you guys to show me that it is, actually, only subjectively important. Thanks so far!

Nothing is "objectively important," including truth or science. That's a contradiction of terms.

>> No.2826195

>>2826157
If you're going by durability, mathematics are the way to go. What you logically deduce will always be true, as long as the conditions (which also include the type of logic you operate on) are given. Outside of that, it becomes a lot more difficult, as truth doesn't really have a place in reality as soon as you start to question your own senses etc. So if you've accepted an objective reality, you might as well go into the arts as everything is equally objective in that system of reference.

In conclusion: Math is more 'true' than everything else, other distinctions can't be made

>> No.2826196

>>2826189
Very true. Peace be with you!

>> No.2826201

>>2826195
Your conclusion seems valid. What does the rest of /lit/ think?

>> No.2826226

Read John Henry Newman´s Idea of the University to find out why science will make you a mindless drone and why you need arts and culture.

>> No.2826266

>>2826201
I'm just mathematically proven mathematics wrong.

>> No.2826282

>>2826266
What.

>> No.2826361

>>2825998
Try Boccaccio's Geneology of the Gentle Gods. It was originally structured as a defense of poetry vs. philosophy originally stemming from The Republic, but you can appropriate it for the arts vs. the sciences.

>> No.2826444

scientific truths are just as malleable as literary canons. what makes us believe that the standard model is going to continue existing as THE model of reality when science has gone through revolution after revolution? and mathematics isn't immune either, when we add more information on top of it that makes us reconsider its basic foundations.

ancient literature, on the other hand, goes back to gilgamesh, which is older than the pythagorean theorem, and gilgamesh is still influential even today. not that the ancient mathematicians are less influential, but we live in a society strewn with culture, and math is culture, culture is math and science. there is no separation between the two, the dichotomy is a recent invention that came out of the modern university, and it's a stupid one. it separates our intelligentsia when we could all just as easily learn both.

>> No.2826543

Study both OP. Each will make you better at the other. Science and art compliment each other with a sense of wonder you might not see in them separately. They are both extremely meticulous if you want success and they both promote curiosity, observation, and reasoning. Be a well rounded individual, OP, not a lifeless scientist or a raging hipster artist.

>> No.2826621

>>2826619
>"are is". >.< whoops

>> No.2826619

>>2826444
what exactly do you mean by malleable? i don't see how F=ma is as open to interpretation as Ulysses or w/e or is this not what you mean?

Most scientists who are actually at work in fields like particle physics accept that tomorrow something could be discovered which could turn the whole field on its head, this is the beauty of science, constant adaptation and modification to more accurately describe how the universe is. I'm not sure I understand your point
>the fact that scientific theories are is constantly changing is not a criticism of science/ the scientific method

>> No.2826647
File: 382 KB, 1071x1492, The_babe_in_the_womb;_Leonardo_da_Vinci_(1511).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2826647

Pursuing science can be an art, and sciences can be applied to arts. You could be like Leonardo and pursue both if you're possessed enough by love, or perhaps fear.
>pic related, a page from Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks

>> No.2826658

>>2826647
Why is that human baby in a cow uterus? What was Leonardo doing??

>> No.2826674

>>2826543
You have the right idea.

Also OP there's a lot of stuff by William Blake on this topic. Always remember that he doesn't hate science itself when you're reading him, though. It can come off that way but it's not the case; he hates the nihilistic or deistic worldviews that the study of science sometimes gives rise to.

>> No.2826679

You will hear every day the maxims of a low prudence. You will hear, that the first duty is to get land and money, place and name. "What is this Truth you seek? What is this Beauty?" men will ask, with derision. If, nevertheless, God have called any of you to explore truth and beauty, be bold, be firm, be true. When you shall say, "As others do, so will I. I renounce, I am sorry for it, my early visions; I must eat the good of the land, and let learning and romantic expectations go, until a more convenient season." — then dies the man in you; then once more perish the buds of art, and poetry, and science, as they have died already in a thousand thousand men. The hour of that choice is the crisis of your history; and see that you hold yourself fast by the intellect. ... Bend to the persuasion which is flowing to you from every object in Nature, to be its tongue to the heart of man, and to show the besotted world how passing fair is wisdom.
-Emerson

>> No.2826689

It's this simple. Science will always change while literature can affect people hundreds of years after it was written.

As a new theory emerges, the same human emotions and problems--and beauty--can be expressed with words.

>> No.2826706

Science is the search for truth about the universes nature
Literature is... well lots of things but i'd say mainly literature and art act as documents of certain concepts and processes of thought on aspects of the human condition
both are awesome
>Math student here

>> No.2826732

>>2826706
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

>> No.2826757

I can't be bothered to read this thread as I'm sure it'll infuriate me.

Just like to add that both are terribly important to society and, to me, an ideally learned man is both interested in arts as well as the sciences.

As far as actually pursuing the arts, only do it if you have no other aspirations besides learning about art and perhaps creating art. You won't get a good job or huge salary out of it, trust me, I know from experience.

>> No.2826768

>>2826679

Emerson's Address to the Literary Societies of Dartmouth College, 1838.

That's so awesome. I went to Dartmouth and I had no idea he gave an address there. Love the passage, too.

>> No.2827754

Thanks everyone! I am truly fascinated by both fields, and I think that I won't 'choose' one over the other, but pursue both for their own reasons..

>> No.2827762

Would you rather be a scholar of man's soul or a scholar of the universe's heart?

>> No.2827765

>>2827762

>implying the two aren't irreconcilably intertwined

>> No.2829464

>>2827762

>Implying they're not the same thing

>> No.2829465

>>2827765
>irreconcilably intertwined

. . .

>> No.2829545

>>2827765
>>2829464
>mfw I made a post that was intentionally vague and unintelligible and now people are arguing over it

Is this how Pynchon feels?

>> No.2829576

Art is frivolous and not "important," or eternal, and unless you're among the very best you probably won't even manage to accomplish anything within the very narrow limitations of art.

Do you seriously enjoy it though, OP? And, being honest with yourself, do you think you could do something no one else could? And (/lit/ will pretend this is irrelevant, but anyone who above the age of 18 should recognize this all bullshit) do you think you could make decent money at it?