/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5488995]

If you didn't get an A in real analysis, you don't know shit about literature.

[Anonymous No.5489267]

This doesn't make sense.

[Mum No.5489292]

i got an A in comprehensive reading in primary school, so im sorted

[Anonymous No.5489299]

I got 100% in every single marked essay and exam during A-Level English with about two hours work a term. Get on my fucking level.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5489305]

>>5488995
fuck off you boring dyke

[Anonymous No.5489306]

>>5489299
the brave new world of grade inflation

[Anonymous No.5489314]

>>5489306
>Implying anyone else did anywhere near as well as me
Please stop projecting just because you failed your A-Levels :^)

[Anonymous No.5489317]

if it's literature we're talking about then shouldn't it be imaginary analysis

[Anonymous No.5489327]

>>5489305
wat

[Anonymous No.5489328]

>>5489317
gr8 meme, ten out of ten

[Mum No.5489329]

>>5489317
that image made me cringe

[Anonymous No.5489345]

>>5489317
I majored in both math and English, making me ShitGod, master of all I see

[Anonymous No.5489349]

>>5489317
⇒majoring in anything but STEM

SHIGGY

[Anonymous No.5489389]

>>5489349
⇒majoring in STEM when you are bad at it
⇒losing jobs to all your peers
⇒complain on 4chan until you are 56 y/o

[Anonymous No.5489392]

>>5489317
would have been funny if you said complex analysis

[Anonymous No.5489397]

>>5489389
⇒majoring in Hum-inanities
⇒losing jobs to all your STEM-peers
⇒complain on 4chan until you are 56 y/o

[Anonymous No.5489410]

>>5489397
I haven't seen anyone on 4chan complain about that. You're probably thinking of tumblr or something

[Anonymous No.5489427]

>>5489397
⇒Majoring in STEM
⇒Having such a low self esteem that you try to insult people who don't care about science and engineering.

[Anonymous No.5489472]

>>5488995
>tfw got a low B
>tfw hate real analysis anyway so I don't care

[Anonymous No.5489492]

>>5489472
It's one of the least interesting subjects in math

[Anonymous No.5489496]

>>5488995
>Spam triangle inequality
>Get A

It's called baby level for a reason

[Anonymous No.5489515]

>>5489496
strong pic

[Anonymous No.5489668]

>>5489397

>major in stem
>lose jobs to indians

the liberal arts fags are our allies, not our enemies

[Anonymous No.5490809]

>>5488995
Are you claiming your school has a course called "real analysis"? Aside from the fact that "getting a A" depends on the prof and material, your claim makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5490818]

>>5489317
>God Tier
>Engineering

You can tell that list was made by an engineer

[Anonymous No.5490883]

>>5490809
it's called "mathematical analysis"

[Anonymous No.5491040]

>>5490883
And that has what to do with literature, exactly?

[Anonymous No.5491044]

>>5490809
he means classical analysis I think

[Anonymous No.5491051]

>>5491040
It means that if you didn't take real analysis (or some equivalent course) and get an A, you do not know shit about literature. I indicated this fairly clearly in the original post.

[Anonymous No.5491056]

>>5491051
But that's nonsensical bullshit. Why would you say something like that?

[Anonymous No.5491061]

>>5491056
because its the best way to understand literature

[Anonymous No.5491074]

>>5491061
No, it's not. It's idiotic way to understand literature. Do you have any kind of argument to support this foolishness? I can't even imagine what your position is founded upon.

[Anonymous No.5491081]

>>5491074
>understanding the authors intent as expressed through symbolic, stylistic and contextual means is idiotic

[Anonymous No.5491091]

What the fuck is actually going on in this thread? I don't think anyone here knows what anyone else is talking about. There's a lack of comprehension as what we all think these terms mean, but you're all still having a go at each other anyway.

You're all faggots and everything said above this post is completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.5491096]

>>5491091
>I don't think anyone here knows what anyone else is talking about. There's a lack of comprehension as what we all think these terms mean, but you're all still having a go at each other anyway.
dont make me giggle

[Anonymous No.5491113]

I'm a math Ph.D. student at a top university in the U.S. and it is painful how many math people are plebs.

I mean, I honestly want to get out of the field when I see a guy who graduated from Harvard summa cum laude reading Game of Thrones, or unironically discussing Dr. Who.

Understanding math definitely doesn't teach you how to have aesthetic taste. On the other hand, I see some non-STEM people who have really poor aesthetic taste partially because they're really vague thinkers. Like, this guy in a philosophy of science seminar I went to the other day said that it's alienating and upsetting for neuroscientists to tell us that love is a chemical process in the brain. I think that guy's opinion is an error of taste resulting from vague thought.

But yeah, real analysis (at the level of Baby Rudin) is intoxicating when you see it for the first time when you're 19, and then when you're older you realize how basic and boring it is. Math gets a lot better than that.

[Anonymous No.5491115]

>>5491081
Finally you begin to start defining your terms! Fine, but WTF does that have to do with "mathematical analysis"?

[Anonymous No.5491126]

>>5491115
I think OP is possibly on a ruseamarol. I thought he meant classical analysis which is mostly a French 19th century thing but has stuck around in various forms. The 20th century ppl are not overly fond of it

[Anonymous No.5491137]

>>5491126
Well, he's had more than enough time to explain himself. I give up.

[Anonymous No.5491139]

>>5491113
>people shouldn't be able to casually enjoy genre fiction if they go to a good university

if you're going to be elitist about literature (as we all are) be a cunt about it for better reasons

[Anonymous No.5491175]

>>5491113
I guess we could take this as an argument for being well-rounded in one's university education, since most literature majors can't handle advanced algebra either. But it's elitist in the "if you know better, you must hate what the masses like" vein. Appreciating anything doesn't have to destroy your appreciation of something else. Most of have albums we still like because we loved the hell out of them when we were 14, and authors we like because they amuse us. Nostalgia and casual fun don't have to excuse themselves, and they don't go away just because you have a doctorate. I teach great literature, and I teach genre fiction courses. Sometimes the same authors are in both (Dickens or Collins, for instance).

[Anonymous No.5491202]

>>5489427
>>5489397
>>5489389
>>5489349
↬either samefagging or using the same fancy may-may arrow as someone else
How shameful.

[Anonymous No.5491209]

>>5491202
he's making fun of arrowfag

or maybe arrowfag is just retarded and is talking to himself

[Anonymous No.5491215]

>>5491175
no

[Anonymous No.5491250]

>>5491139
>>5491175

I understand what you're saying. I mean I would never suggest that it's a good idea to be totally highbrow all the time. I enjoy listening to top 40 radio shit for example. And I did read the first three Game of Thrones books at one point (although I was 11-12 at the time).

But today, if I open Game of Thrones or some genre fiction book and start reading, I just see aggressive shittiness jumping out at me. I honestly have lost the ability to see what's good in it. And I think that's because I've spent a great deal of effort in refining my sensibilities and taste and becoming more perceptive. I don't think it's because I'm a cunt, although I may be.

If someone doesn't experience what I described, then I suspect that they haven't put in the same effort. And if that person is an intellectual at the top of their field (like certain of my peers that I mentioned), then that just strikes me as a goddamn shame.

But it's possible that the loss of the ability to appreciate genre fiction is not something that necessarily happens to everyone with years and years of intense study of literature. I mean, the same thing has not happened to me with music. I've studied the structure of the classical piano sonatas and what I learned doesn't make me necessarily dislike a pop song, although I do see the shittiness sometimes. So it's open for debate.

...Another aspect of it is that I'm keenly aware of the stuff that I need to read and absorb that I haven't yet. I'm walking around with a hole in my heart because I haven't read Dante in Italian and filled the margins with commentary. So to read something that's totally ephemeral when there's so much of the canon without which the world cannot be understood still exterior to my consciousness is almost physically painful to me.

[Anonymous No.5491262]

>>5491250
Has it not occurred to you that these people may not have the time to read further than purely for quick entertainment/an enjoyable rather than particularly thought-provoking boo, because they are at the top of their fields, and spend so much of what you'd consider spare time on furthering their primary interest?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5491283]

>>5488995
And yet, I'll sleep well tonight.

>>5489305
Boring troll.

[Anonymous No.5491311]

>>5489317
chiropractors mid tier...

[Anonymous No.5491314]

>>5491283
fuck off you boring dyke

[Anonymous No.5491348]

>>5491262

Yes, of course. In some ways I'm envious of people that have only one intellectual interest. Many of the most successful people I know fit that mold.

But I mean this is math we're talking about. It's not a lab science where people might realistically be in the lab 100 hours a week. There's only so much you can do mentally in a day and then you have to do something else. Most of us are not really so pressed for time.

To me, the need to study literature is pressing. It's not optional or a hobby. You have to do it to live in the world. I may simply be neurotic for feeling that. But I also often perceive that the mathematicians and scientists around me without an amateur interest in the humanities tend to fail hard on empathy in ways that I suspect must come back to haunt them in their personal lives.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5491512]

>>5491314
No, I'm the interesting one.

[Anonymous No.5491619]

>>5491113
>to tell us that love is a chemical process in the brain

No one has a fucking clue how the brain does anything from recognizing what we see to coming up with ideas is a fucking black box. All we know is chemicals can fuck with it (LSD, Shrooms, Alcohol) but what really is happening is anyone's fucking guess.

Also

>neuroscientists
>Not neurophilosophers

[Anonymous No.5491784]

>>5491348
>To me, the need to study literature is pressing. It's not optional or a hobby. You have to do it to live in the world.
Why?

[Anonymous No.5491959]

>>5491113
What's the better math? Real analysis was as far as I got.

[Anonymous No.5491983]

>>5491959
The most interesting mathematics is in algebraic geometry

[Anonymous No.5491993]

>>5491113
>it's alienating and upsetting for neuroscientists to tell us that love is a chemical process in the brain. I think that guy's opinion is an error of taste resulting from vague thought.

"Love is a chemical process" is a very standard STEMpleb premise. I'm surprised you're arguing as if you're above that kind of thing while accusing its critics, who are probably coming from a more subtle point of view than base reductionism, of "vague thought."

[Anonymous No.5491998]

>>5489305
> fly calling someone a boring dyke

[Anonymous No.5492002]

>>5489472
>>5489492
Fucking kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5492004]

>>5490809
Literally kill yourself, plebeian

[Anonymous No.5492013]

>>5491619

>No one has a fucking clue how the brain does anything from recognizing what we see to coming up with ideas is a fucking black box. All we know is chemicals can fuck with it (LSD, Shrooms, Alcohol) but what really is happening is anyone's fucking guess.

>recognizing what we see
I just took Principles of Neural Science off the shelf; there is a whole chapter called "Constructing the Visual Image." We actually understand quite a lot about the brain; not enough to explain everything about consciousness, but a lot. We certainly understand almost everything about how various drugs affect the brain, even if we may not be able to account for all aspects of the subjective experience of taking those drugs.

>>5491784
Because the cultural complexity of the world in 2014 is so great. If you don't spend time trying as hard as you can to deeply understand people, their emotions, and their culture, then you will pay the highest possible price from it. You will be alienated from everyone around you. The way we learn to understand each other in the West is through literature and its study. Read e.g. The Novel: A Biography to work toward appreciating that fact.

>>5491959

Let's use the analogy of tennis. High school calculus is like small children walking out onto a court and smacking a ball around, not really knowing anything about how the game is supposed to be played. Real analysis is like learning how to serve, drilling it over and over until you can really do it decently. Not as good as the pros, but decently. You become competent at some small aspect of the game. Real mathematics is like Roger Federer performing at the highest level in every component of his game, and blending all the parts seamlessly, and making it look not only beautiful but utterly effortless.

[Anonymous No.5492014]

>>5492002
That won't make real analysis any more interesting.

[Anonymous No.5492018]

>>5492013
>I just took Principles of Neural Science off the shelf; there is a whole chapter called "Constructing the Visual Image." We actually understand quite a lot about the brain;

Your conclusion, "we actually understand quite a lot about the brain" comes from "there is a whole chapter called 'Constructing the Visual Image'"? And you say you're studying math?

[Anonymous No.5492027]

>>5492018

No, I mentioned that chapter because that guy said that we don't understand visual recognition, which we certainly do, at least in large part.

My claim "we actually understand quite a lot about the brain" is unrelated or at least intended to be a much more general statement, but you don't need to get very deep into neuroscience to be educated enough to agree with it.

[Anonymous No.5492028]

>>5492013
>I just took Principles of Neural Science off the shelf; there is a whole chapter called "Constructing the Visual Image."

And I literally do research on Computer Vision and most of that information is subjective and not a concrete process

[Anonymous No.5492053]

>>5492028

What information? The most up-to-date information from neuroscience research or the information processed by the visual system?

I hope you're not criticizing the former because if you study image processing stuff you'll be aware that, for reasons of difference in architecture, computers can't imitate the brain's visual processing "software". Unless you're using neural nets, which I understand are pretty computationally inefficient.

If you mean the latter I can assure you that it is concrete in the sense that it is something that physically happens in the brain.

[Anonymous No.5492455]

⇒ If you didn't get 140+ in an IQ test, you don't know shit about Intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5492460]

>>5492455

⇒intelligence

Thad doesn't exist, it's a mere social construct, same goes for IQ tests. They only measure your compliance with machine thinking.

[Anonymous No.5492463]

>>5492455
>>5492460

⇒both of you

Could stop using "material implication" arrows. Unless you're material girls in a material world.

[Anonymous No.5492468]

>>5492455
>>5492460
>>5492463
⇒samefig

[Anonymous No.5492490]

>>5492460
⇒Thad doesn't exist, it's a mere social construct
something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist dingus

[Anonymous No.5492547]

>>5491959
⇒What's the better math?

If you can't even into babby's first quasilinear elliptic cohomology of baxterized affine hecke algebras in wrapped Fukaya categories on projective exceptional flag manifolds, then you don't know shit about math.

[Anonymous No.5494311]

is this a brit thing?

[Anonymous No.5494699]

>>5492490
Yeah, guess it depends on your definition of existence

[Anonymous No.5494969]

>>5490818
Engineers are better than pure scientists, because they deal with real world noise in order to come up with real solutions to problems. There isn't a single recent modern experiment which didn't need at least one engineer to build or calibrate equipment which actually worked.

[Anonymous No.5495012]

>>5492547
⇒you don't know shit about math
That sentence has no real reference.

[Anonymous No.5496397]

>>5494311
no

[Anonymous No.5496437]

>>5488995
>analysis

How useless.

All that matters is what the author says, the rest is just fake imaginary guessing.

[Anonymous No.5497164]

>>5496437
looks like you didn't even get a c in real analysis

[Anonymous No.5497178]

>>5489317
Pharmacology is the obvious God Tier field of study; whoever made that image is a retard.

[Anonymous No.5497202]

>>5491314
#REKT

[Anonymous No.5497610]

>>5489317
maths are the queen, they should have a special "Greek Chaos tier" for they precede the creation of all