/lit/ - Literature

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899167]

Talk to me about your paranoia towards objective values (aesthetic or otherwise) Humeans of /lit/.

Why is it so scary for literature to serve a neurological function?

[Anonymous No.2899172]

I'm OK with objective aesthetic values so long as it's not brain scientists or whatever trying to figure them out

[Anonymous No.2899176]

Have you ever considered that our brains are only trying to attribute all experience to the brain so that we humans don't get rid of them?

Our brains have enslaved us.

[Anonymous No.2899182]

>>2899176

I, for one, took a trip to Swaziland to have my brain surgically removed. I've been in tip top shape ever since! The brain is a wasteful organ that attempts to fool man into being its slave! You can't believe it.

[Anonymous No.2899181]

>>neurological function
>>implying functions

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899190]

>>2899172

Why not? Aren't artists simply straining to intuitively grasp an understanding of something that cognitive neuroscientists can empirically observe, measure and eventually predict?

[Anonymous No.2899194]

>tfw /lit/ is filled with evo-psycho woo and there will never be a mod to stop it

[Anonymous No.2899199]

>>2899194
>tfw the whole world is filled with evo-psych woo and nobody will ever go against it because it's "science"

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899204]

>>2899194

Yeah it's a sad story for you that hiding from empirical aesthetics by way of dismissing it as a 'fringe science' doesn't quite cut it anymore.

[Anonymous No.2899210]

I think it's INTRINSIC objective values most subjectivists reject. I assume subjectivists are willing to accept there are such objective facts as that certain books benefit certain people according to what they desire and others don't, and that a notion of contextual objective value can be defined in terms of this. It's the idea of there being some things that purely in virtue of their intrinsic nature are valuable that they find objectionable.

tl;dr you misunderstand the discourse you are attempting to participate in.

[Anonymous No.2899211]

>>2899199
>tfw my views are becoming more and more like a Scientologist's, and I don't really have a problem with that because of the disasters psychology and psychiatry have wreaked upon the American public

[Anonymous No.2899212]

Objective values don't exist

Science including neurology and psychology cannot describe "purposes" and is supposed to be value-free

[Anonymous No.2899213]

>>2899204
>>empirical aesthetics
>>implying that is really a thing

[Anonymous No.2899215]

>>2899212
>Science including neurology and psychology cannot describe "purposes" and is supposed to be value-free
Nope. Biology describes the purpose of organisms.

[Anonymous No.2899217]

>>2899215
Biology describes the mechanisms of life. We anthropomorphize, say, sodium-potassium channels as opening and closing for some reason or other, but it's actually just a homeostatic reactionary process that evolved as a result of natural selection

[Anonymous No.2899219]

>>2899215
so what do they say the purpose is then?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899220]

>>2899210

false dichotomy. really great books span ephemeral contextual appeals or cultural popularity and are popular centuries later.

we're talking about books which resonate directly with the neurology of modern humans.

[Anonymous No.2899225]

>>2899220
>great books
>popular
>resonate directly with neurology

whoa bro, looks like this post fell in a vat of toxic waste

[Anonymous No.2899227]

>>2899190
>cognitive neuroscientists can empirically observe, measure and eventually predict?
>eventually predict?
Do you seriously believe that? There are so many pipe dreams associated with the field of neuroscience at the moment it's ridiculous. I suppose it's been this way with all new fields of science, though: In the early stages everyone's so drunk on it's potential for new knowledge they think it's destined to explain all remaining human questions. Don't worry, you'll grow out of your epistemological naivety in a few decades, I imagine.

[Anonymous No.2899230]

>>2899220

And how is 'resonance with neurology', or whatever other standard you decide to use, "objectively" valuable?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899234]

>>2899230

because it contributes to and is beneficial for the wellbeing of the conscious experience of human beings.

>>2899227

Given enough time, absolutely. It's purely a problem of complexity.

[Anonymous No.2899237]

>>2899227
The attitude towards neuroscience has a lot of the 'flying cars' enthusiasm to it. Similar to how in the 50s and 60s leading 'experts' said we would have AI by the end of the 90s (~).

[Anonymous No.2899242]

>>2899234
what is beneficial?
what is wellbeing?
what is conscious experience?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899243]

>>2899225
popular/appreciated/renown, whatever you want to use for considered timeless.
I guess the word popular has inseparable connotations with fashionable and i regret using that word now.

[Anonymous No.2899244]

>>2899234
>because it contributes to and is beneficial for the wellbeing of the conscious experience of human beings.

And how are these things "objectively" valuable?

[Anonymous No.2899246]

>>2899220
>false dichotomy
where? point it out, don't just randomly accuse me of fallacies.
>really great books span ephemeral contextual appeals or cultural popularity and are popular centuries later
I assume by this mess of a sentence you mean to say some books stand the test of time. so what? universality (and this isn't even a case of that since no book is enjoyed by everyone) does not equal objectivity.
>we're talking about books which resonate directly with the neurology of modern humans
Any object capable of being apprehended by a human sense organ resonates directly with the neurology of modern humans. what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

2/10 poor troll

[Anonymous No.2899258]

>>2899234
>Given enough time, absolutely.
then you're objectively a retard.
>It's purely a problem of complexity.
Yeh. No fucking shit. A problem of overwhelming complexity scientists will never be able to get on top of. But by all means continue believing scientists are modern day ubermenschen who will one day rule the universe as omniscient demigods if it tickles your fancy.

[Anonymous No.2899274]

>>2899234
>>It's purely a problem of complexity.
What does that mean? Fucking nothing. Just consider that we cannot even predict accurately whether it's going to rain in a certain city on a certain day or not. There is absolutely no argumentative value to saying 'it's a problem of complexity'. It's not like we have the tools in principle to determine how though relates to the brain, but we need more computing power. This is not the case because complex cognitive functions like aesthetics probably require a holistic approach (at least holistic with respect to large areas of the brain) which means that we cannot simply develop our methods on a small group of neurons and somehow expect the insights to 'scale up'.

[Anonymous No.2899282]

>>2899279
>call me a retard if you want

Okay.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899279]

>>2899244

because they distance humans from suffering.

>>2899246

>no book is enjoyed by everyone
depends on what you mean by 'enjoyed'.

>>2899246
>>2899274

scientific progress expands exponentially, as does scientific equipment with computational power. The brain is extremely complicated, but I don't believe that it's beyond our reach.

call me a retard if you want, I imagine people were saying the same thing about understanding the sun around the same time Joseph von Fraunhoger was developing the spectroscope.

[Anonymous No.2899289]

>>2899279
>because they distance humans from suffering.

And why is distancing humans from suffering "objectively" valuable?

[Anonymous No.2899292]

>>2899279
why is suffering bad?
what does "mean" mean?
>call me a retard if you want
Will do.

[Anonymous No.2899293]

>>2899279
>>scientific progress expands exponentially
What quantity are you proposing to measure that will be called 'scientific progress'? Why do you keep pulling assertions out of your ass? Obviously I cannot predict the amount of insight we will gain into the human brain, let alone 'given enough time', whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, but neither can you, and stop posting pictures of that smug ugly fuck and why is the cute chick from House letting that midget touch her?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899331]

>>2899292
>>2899289

>why is suffering bad

If you're closed to higher states of consciousness, higher from the worst possible misery, then it's objectively bad.

if bad is going to mean anything, it should apply here. If you don't think the worst possible misery is bad, i don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.2899337]

>>2899331
>If you're closed to higher states of consciousness, higher from the worst possible misery, then it's objectively bad.

How? What if someone said, "No, I disagree with you?" What fact would they have wrong?

>if bad is going to mean anything, it should apply here. If you don't think the worst possible misery is bad, i don't know what you're talking about.

If it is going to objectively mean anything. Why, "should" it apply here? Why not elsewhere? Are there any natural facts that imply non-natural facts? You realize that this is an elementary fallacy of logic?

[Anonymous No.2899341]

>>2899331

Simply stating that something should be obvious is NOT an argument.

[Truman No.2899364]

>>2899337

Because theres nothing worse, nothing justifiable or salvageable from the worst possible suffering. If the worst possible suffering isn't bad, then what is?

If you accept that questions of good and bad are predicated on minds, and that minds are natural phenomenon, then you must therefore admit that good and bad are tacitly bound to the natural experience of minds. If consciousness didn't exist in our universe there would be no values.

[Anonymous No.2899371]

>>2899364
> If the worst possible suffering isn't bad, then what is?
Objectively, nothing. That's the entire point of this fucking thread, you moron.

Is your argument really, "Well if there were no objective values, then there would be no objective values. That can't be right so there must be objective values and they must be these ones I've chosen because I can't think of anything else they could possibly be."?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899394]

>>2899371
it's like you're selectively reading my posts, almost as if you're scared of really confronting my point.

[Anonymous No.2899400]

>>2899394
So what is your point?
This?
>If consciousness didn't exist in our universe there would be no values.
Doesn't this imply that all values are subjective?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899410]

>>2899400

if minds were subjective, yes

[Anonymous No.2899416]

>>2899410
Minds are subjects

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2899427]

>>2899416
natural phenomena

[Anonymous No.2899429]

>>2899427
Yes. Also subjects.

[Anonymous No.2899513]

Would the "rule of thirds" in photography be an example of an objective aesthetic value?