[ 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: 71 KB, 751x900, louis-aragon-1897-1982-french-poet-everett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6451565 No.6451565 [Reply] [Original]

There is "true" beauty, "objective" beauty, and the point of art is trying to reach it, avant garde is shit, Philip Glass is pop, jazz is pop, god is not dead and you're going to hell

>> No.6451570

there's no art, only signs

>> No.6451575
File: 30 KB, 331x273, Palestrina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6451575

>>6451565
Totally agreed tbh

Though I must admit to enjoying jazz, and perhaps subconsciously elevating it.

>> No.6451578

That's your opinion

>> No.6451579

Nuh-uh.

>> No.6451607

>>6451565
embarrassing post

>> No.6451612

>>6451570
Deleuze and Proust please go
>>6451575
Worry not brother, I, too, enjoy things of dubious quality such as whores and fast food.
>>6451578
It is, but it is also Truth.
>>6451579
>>6451607
Lucifer has a devil put aside for you

>> No.6451626

>>6451565
Is the man in your pic truly and objectively beautiful

>> No.6451629

true objective beauty is jesus and art cannot reach this, only believing in him can. the material world literally means nothing, only god is everything

>> No.6451633

>>6451626
He is the greatest poet of all time, and was closer to God because of it.

>>6451629
We can only try to get closer to God, it is Man's only purpose and only noble goal.

>> No.6451634

>>6451612

>It is, but it is also Truth

Not really. Truth eith a capital T would be absolutely accurate information, which is unattainable and which you don't provide. Why don't you do some growing up and realize your opinion is just your opinion

>> No.6451635

>>6451629
I believe good art can bring us closer to God, and that truly great artists are blessed by divine grace.

>> No.6451637

>>6451629
>>6451634
>>6451635
These guys get it
>mfw tool made a shit song called closer to god
This angers me.

>> No.6451638

>>6451634
Why don't you just accept Jesus as your lord and savior instead of polluting my thread ?

>> No.6451639

>>6451635
that's apostasy

only prayer gets you closer to god. it says in the bible

>> No.6451644

>>6451639
That is not the same type of approach we are talking about here.

Besides, this is doxa, brother.

>> No.6451647

>>6451638

Because there's zero evidence that any of the events in the Gospels actually happened

>> No.6451650

>>6451647
And that stops you from accepting Jesus as your lord and savior why ?

>> No.6451651

>>6451644
the approach you are talking about here is pure apostasy. the flesh cannot create anything that would get anyone closer to god, only the spirit. the spirit does not create art

>> No.6451652

>>6451633
But does he have 10/10 facial aesthetics, that's the important part

>> No.6451655

>>6451651
>The spirit does not create art
Back up this claim

>> No.6451658

>>6451647
zero 'empirical' evidence but outward signs aren't really the concern of the bible

i don't think you've read anything in the gospels anyway

>> No.6451663

>>6451655
because it is not material

>> No.6451667

>>6451650

Because it means that there's an extremely high chance that pretty much all of the religious claims about him are complete and utter bullshit

>> No.6451670

>>6451663
Music and Poetry are immaterial.

>> No.6451671

>>6451658

Then the Bible is of no concern to me

>> No.6451672

>>6451667
This is a logical fallacy in causality.
Besides, even if your point were true, it wouldn't affect faith at all.

Jesus loves you regardless.

>> No.6451673

>>6451670

And how do you know this? How does one accurately distinguish between material stuff and immaterial stuff?

>> No.6451676

>>6451672

Not really, since I used the word 'chance'.

Also, faith is not an argument

>> No.6451678

>>6451670
the spirit only contacts god. if the spirit creates art then god would have told us this

>>6451671
your loss

>> No.6451679

>>6451673
It has no physical incarnate.
Except the air vibrations wich are a deformation of matter and not matter itself.
It is why poetry and music are the greatest forms of art.
What do you think ?

>> No.6451680

>>6451678

What loss? That I don't listen to ancient hysterics who were as deluded as you?

>> No.6451681

>>6451679
hymns and psalms are the greatest form of music and poetry

>> No.6451683

>>6451681
yes

>> No.6451685

>>6451680
that you won't be saved

>> No.6451686

>>6451679
theatre is a deformation of bodies and therefore not physically incarnate

>> No.6451691

>>6451686
You are right

>> No.6451695

>>6451679

>it has no physical incarnate, except this one physical incarnate

Also, we don't know something != I get to make claims about stuff beyond reality

>> No.6451696

>>6451681
Of course songs in praise of the divine are the highest form of art, that is clear.

>> No.6451698

>>6451695
It only incarnates when it is formulated and comes from the divine to existence, is my point.

>> No.6451703

>>6451685

Saved from something that is extremely unlikely to exist? Saved from a threat for which you again present nothing to indicate it even exists?

Yeah I'm really terrified of that, almost as terrified as being abducted by aliens for not praising Klorg, the King of Greys

>> No.6451708

>>6451698

And my point is that those are baseless claims that you merely assert as true, rather than demonstrate as true

>> No.6451727

>>6451708
This is demonstrated by physics

>> No.6451744

>>6451703
i will pray for you anon

>> No.6451748

>>6451703
Your beliefs are unfounded and based on faith alone.

>> No.6452128

>>6451565
The notion of 'true' beauty is the primary detriment to humanity, insofar as we have based our conception of faith around what is nothing more than the shallow play of surfaces. Why would an all-loving, benevolent God encourage our strife towards Him as what essentially amounts to nothing more than the praise appearance and exclusivity? We exist in a world in which God has entirely obscured His mark, in which the only tool at our feet with which to find him is faith; surely the very fact that His presence is defined by absence in the material world suggests that we must look beyond all surfaces, to see that which is nothing but all-encompassing divine light, a light which contains every beautiful, ugly, terrifying, transcendent form in the universe?

>> No.6452130

>>6452128
praise of*, apologies

>> No.6452131
File: 91 KB, 1872x203, christianity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6452131

Reminder.

>> No.6452156

Damn straight, OP. Hopefully the politics ban will get rid of all the critical theory plebs who deny such things.

>> No.6452159

>>6451634
>Truth eith a capital T would be absolutely accurate information,
On this episode of 'Definitions I Pulled Out Of My Ass' it's Faggot Anon!

>> No.6452379

You're correct, of course, OP, but perhaps an argument to go along with that might be appropriate, so that we discharge our obligations as civilised men to those children of our Lord who know no better, and so do more than sneer at them. (I know, I know, this is 4chan, but still).

Art, as the name implies, is the work of men presented and considered in itself, for its own sake. All forms of action derive their identity from their distinctive end. The question of the end of art, then, is the question of what object the work of men has, considered precisely as the work of men and not something else. And the peculiar form of human action is this: that alone of all creatures he is capable of abstraction- of possessing in himself the determinate essence or idea of something else, as isolated and separated from all accidents and individuation- and setting these abstractions before himself as objects of action and of expression. The end which makes human action what it is, then, is the idea or essence, whatever other ends may be attached to this basic function. The end of art, then, is the end at which abstraction aims- and this is to possess the idea, or essence, or Form.

Per Plato, the Form is both the very principle of intelligibility, and the very principle of beauty. That judgements of beauty are judgements about Form is obvious, for beauty is not a thing of any one sense: beauty is said of the visual aspects of things, as in a painting or a sunset, but it is also said of the aural- as of music, and even of the purely intelligible, as of elegant theorems in mathematics, which are not "sensible" at all. To point out what is common here, judgements about beauty are judgements about the intrinsic order or pattern or harmony of a thing, and can be judged as more or less perfect, as the degree to which this principle of order or harmony is realised. As a thing's peculiar principle of order or pattern or harmony is precisely the essence by which something is what it is, the perfection of beauty is the perfection of form. Hence art is more perfectly art, the better it achieves its distinctive end, which is "perfection according to Form": Beauty.

That aesthetic judgement is objective judgement is obvious, since the Forms just are that which we grasp when we grasp the truth of things. It judges its object considered precisely as intelligible, and is accompanied therefore by a kind of movement away from the merely sensible and changeable. This is why beauty has been tied to disinterest (e.g. in Kant) and a kind of superfluity to the ordinary economy of men: the essence of aesthetic judgement is the judgement about Form, and a Form cannot be considered in itself, except apart from extraneous ideas and instrumental intentions. Where understanding of essence and form is lacking, all that remains is a kind of hopeless, futile striving away from some meaningless particular toward another- the corrupt subversion-for-its-own-sake we see in the avant-garde.

>> No.6452385

>>6452379
(continued)

The beautiful, which is the intelligible, is more than merely the end of art. Each thing is what it is, after all, only through its peculiar intrinsic principle of order, hence everything, insofar as it exists, has some degree of beauty. This is what makes judgements about beauty so contentious: if one looks hard enough, one can find the beauty in anything. This, of course, does not excuse ugliness, but ugliness is easy to overlook when the mind is dazzled by beauty. As something so necessarily universal, Beauty is a Transcendental- a thing possessed by everything, insofar as it is. It is, therefore, an aspect of the one general principle that rules all else: Beauty itself is a face of God, who is (if one may put this crudely) the Form of Forms and the Intelligence of all that is intelligible.

The Beautiful, then, leads to God as surely as the other transcendentals, such as Being and Goodness. But even as men's minds are meant for the Beautiful itself, and are directed toward it by the beauty we find in the world, we find that we have no power in us to fix Beauty as our object: in our ordinary condition, we do not know God. Because of this estrangement, there is nothing in us capable of sustaining eternal life. And that which has not eternal life, is by that very definition damned.

>> No.6452400

>>6452131
What is your point ?

>>6452385
Thank you for this post and your valuable contribution to this thread. I agree 100%

>> No.6452402

>>6452379
> And the peculiar form of human action is this: that alone of all creatures he is capable of abstraction- of possessing in himself the determinate essence or idea of something else, as isolated and separated from all accidents and individuation- and setting these abstractions before himself as objects of action and of expression.
Or, rather, he is under the deluded misapprehension that he is capable of 'abstraction', whereas he is merely caught in the endless deferral of signification from one signifier to the next, never reaching 'pure' abstraction in the slightest outside of cold and calculating empiricism, which itself is simply a conscious deferral of one particle into an even smaller particle, an infinite deconstruction of 'form' with no possible endpoint. After thousands of years of intellectual development, I'd like to think we'd moved on from Plato's static and inadequate conceptions of form.

>> No.6452408

>>6452402

Every single word you used in this post, if it means anything, operates by means of your faculty of abstraction. You're literally arguing that your words don't have meaning, you know this, right? Truly, the darkness of Hell is profound.

>> No.6452409

>>6452402
You forget about pure intuition (eg Mathematics.)

>> No.6452427

I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that the internets biggest hub of manchildren has some of the most regressive views about art and culture possible.

We get it, your prolonged childhood makes you crave order, but I'm telling you now (and please don't cry) that order will not bring you back into the womb.

>> No.6452435

>>6452427

>using 'regressive' as an insult
>not childish

Tu quoque, Proglodyte.

>> No.6452440

>>6452408
>Every single word you used in this post, if it means anything, operates by means of your faculty of abstraction
Actually, it operates by plotting a sequence of reference points along the deferral of signification by means of temporality (IE, I can assume what a particular signifier means given my allotted positioning within time), which provides us with the misapprehension of coherence, of total form. I can read what I say because of the way my identity is arranged and constituted by those reference points, and exactly the same applies for you too.
>You're literally arguing that your words don't have meaning, you know this, right?
No, I'm arguing they don't have static or stable meaning, which is entirely different.

>Truly, the darkness of Hell is profound.
I might be trapped in darkness, that is for certain; but at least I am not simply blind.

>>6452409
Such abstractions are not linguistically constituted insofar as they deal with quantifiable values and formulaic structures. 'beauty' works in neither.

>> No.6452450

>>6452435
I used both. Please don't throw a tantrum. I'll get you a toy if you behave. :)

>> No.6452457

>>6452440
>I can read what I say because of the way my identity is arranged and constituted by those reference points, and exactly the same applies for you too.
Postmodernism BTFO

>> No.6452473

>>6452408
>>6452440
Just to add, you seem to be condemning me as a heathen for not accepting the notion of perfect beauty; why? in the endless chain of signification, I see the infinite nature of Him; the endless and omnipresence of meaning perpetuated by all of His beloved creations. Read my earlier post of >>6452128 - we should rejoice in the glory of all which contains within it the divinity of His impossible providence, and infinite signification is simply testament to his omnipotence.

>> No.6452496

>>6452440
>reference points

Yeah, and this is totally not an abstraction, right.

What is a "reference point" as opposed to a Borogrove, or a triangle, or anything else? Whether there is one meaning or a range, the very terms you use have to signify a quiddity that is distinguishable from all the infinite qualifications of being, if it is to be meaningful. If there is no meaning behind the token, as you argue, then your entire statement was gibberish. If there is, then there must be such a thing as what it is to be a "reference point," a "sequence," etc: an essence, and so, Plato wins.

>I'm arguing that they don't have static or stable meaning

The hylomorphic theory of meaning does not entail that the meaning of words is "static," if by this you mean that each word-token has its meaning fixed in virtue of the aural or written qualities of the token. Rather, it entails that a meaning itself is unchangeable, such that a given meaning cannot acquire another meaning without another meaning coming into being and the old meaning ceasing to be meant. (and of course this is blindingly obvious, but those who diss Plato typically have no idea what they are talking about).

>> No.6452503

>>6452457
Most post-modernist philosophers would agree with me. Have you never read Deleuze and Guttari's Anti-Oedipus?

>> No.6452506

>People replying to /pol/s continued fit over the sticky

For what purpose

>> No.6452541

>>6452496
>Yeah, and this is totally not an abstraction, right.
It is an abstraction insofar as I have 'abstracted' it as a specific term from my readings, but as it is an empirical term which can be imbued with quantative value (IE, one is capable of measuring physical distance between two points), then it is only a linguistic abstraction in the sense that I have used language to express it.

>If there is no meaning behind the token, as you argue
Which I don't, as I have already expressed.

>a given meaning cannot acquire another meaning without another meaning coming into being and the old meaning ceasing to be meant
where does my argument contradict this? Such a theory is completely reconcilable with the deferral of meaning and its intrinsic relationship with temporality.

>> No.6452558

>>6452506
How is this /pol/? Philosophy, theology etc. are still allowed.

>> No.6452808

>>6452473
Everyone is heathenous in some respect, and your aesthetics/semantics are surely corrupt enough to merit the appellation, since properly understood it denies the very intelligibility of creation and language, notwithstanding your protestations. Infinite chains of signification, because no sign possesses meaning in itself but only defers its object, possess no meaning at all: ex nihilo, nihil fit. So, infinite chains of signs, each meaning nothing, cannot even be chains of "signs" at all. The omnipotence of God is not found in such confusions, I think. If your semantics were (per impossibile) correct, then all your words of praise would be lies.

I condemn your denial of perfect beauty because it is a) untrue and b) impious. Beauty is a transcendental, and therefore of divine origin, hence to deny perfect beauty is to deny God, which is impious.

To see the beauty of a thing just is to see it as it truly is, and is not a "shallow play of surfaces," precisely because beauty is in the "whatness" or quiddity that makes a thing what it is. God has stamped his mark on everything for all to see- there is no piety to be gained in denying this, only the fruitless denigration of creation and therefore the Creator. The danger is in too weakly affirming the beauty of created things, which will cause one to deny the Beauty that makes them beautiful. To deny the beauty of creation is, if you understand what beauty is, tantamount to denying the being of creation, and ultimately to deny that God creates. If you value piety, your view is something you would be well rid of.

>>6452541

Let's be clear here: I was arguing that created things have an intrinsic (if qualified) intelligible quiddity or essence which distinguishes some particular qualification of being from all others, hence are susceptible of a faculty of abstraction, which distils the intelligible essence and divides it from accidents, including accidents of time and place, which is the distinctive power of man. I have not been talking about the properties of word-tokens, which are not intrinsically meaningful, but of Forms, which are intrinsically meaningful and are not necessarily tied to any word-token.

You have been arguing (as I see it, constructing your argument so that it denies my premise) that, no, the intelligibility of things is an illusion- in fact what we think we mean by meaning is an infinite chain of deferred signification. If linguistic tokens do not signify forms, but only an endlessly deferred series of further tokens, then there is no intrinsically-meaningful object of abstraction, hence no abstraction has occurred. My reply to this is above.

If you have not been arguing this (as you now seem to be saying), then you have provided no rebuttal to my original position. It is no rebuttal to my position to say that the meaning of our linguistic tokens may change, since in the first place I was not saying that they don't change.

>> No.6453048

>>6452808
>it denies the very intelligibility of creation and language, notwithstanding your protestations
God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he? The very deferral I'm attempting to trace is, at least in my view, the very thing which keeps us from ever reaching divine knowledge. Let's get this straight, I don't identify as Christian, or 'religious' in any true sense. Instead I believe that such identifications lend oneself not only to institutional manipulation, but also does a disservice to the transcendental signified you know as Christ and I know as entirely incomprehensible, but (for the sake of argument) I must refer to as 'meaning'.

>Infinite chains of signification, because no sign possesses meaning in itself but only defers its object, possess no meaning at all: ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Simply because no sign possesses meaning in itself doesn't negate meaning entirely; like I said earlier, 'relative' meaning (even though I dislike the word due to its unconquerable complexity) can be derived from a mapping out of one's identity along the chain of signification by means of ones temporal positioning. Think of it this way; the Eiffel tower is positioned, rather arbitrarily, in a specific point in Paris. It is typically identified as the universal 'symbol' for the city, despite being a relatively recent addition to the skyline in the timeline of Paris. Yet it is in no sense central within the city, simply that if one were to view the city from the peak of the tower, it would appear as if Paris were totally organised at and around one's feet. In being positioned as subject, one experiences language as a unified and total form, so long as one's subject privilege is maintained; that is to say, so long as its centrality is not displaced by another subjective 'centre' (if someone were to stand on another tall building in paris before the erection of the Eiffel Tower, for example, it would appear that the city is also organised around that point). Such is the case for every self-consciousness on the planet. So long as the points of correspondence along the chain match our own experience, a sense of totality is achieved; but, as the chain is infinite, that totality is but a minute castaway in a shoreless sea of deferred meanings. To say they mean nothing is to arbitrarily dismiss the potential for human communication, which is preposterous; to arbitrarily assert one's own subject privilege as the universal, however, is to deny the infinite variety of meaning which your own God (should) accommodate, which is itself heathenous.

>beauty is in the "whatness" or quiddity that makes a thing what it is. God has stamped his mark on everything for all to see
Only if your conception of 'beauty' corresponds with the sequence of plot points along the signifying chain; that is to say, in this instance, if it corresponds with your eurocentric conceptions of beauty.

>> No.6453055
File: 3 KB, 208x104, miley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6453055

>all jazz is pop

kill ur self

>> No.6453102

>>6452808
>>6453048
>I was arguing that created things have an intrinsic (if qualified) intelligible quiddity or essence which distinguishes some particular qualification of being from all others, hence are susceptible of a faculty of abstraction, which distils the intelligible essence and divides it from accidents, including accidents of time and place, which is the distinctive power of man
It is unfortunate, then, that we are men, and not Gods: to strive for perfect, beauteous forms is to rely on the 'accidents of time and place' made by men who erroneously place themselves at the universal centre, which includes classical philosophers, biblical writers, and all manner of individuals who attempted to claim that their truth was above all other truths. You're a 'glass-half-empty' kinda guy when it comes to the signifying chain: you see an absence of meaning, whereas I see the infinite multiplicity of meanings, and thus the infinite beauty in all of creation, and not just those designated as 'beautious' by dead philosophers and figures of religious authority.

>> No.6453127 [DELETED] 

Science and Sports are human.
Religion and Philosophy are spiritual.
Art is divine.