[ 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: 163 KB, 1024x629, C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1431682739153.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658507 No.6658507 [Reply] [Original]

Is art more important to civilization than science? why?

>> No.6658527

>>6658507
No, because science keeps people alive and is integral to civilization, while art is so deeply a part of human nature that it can and will exist in pre- or post-civilized states.

>> No.6658535

>>6658527
/thread

>> No.6658536

Science makes it possible to live, art makes it worth living.

>> No.6658537

>>6658507
Are rocks bigger than trees?
Does love shine bright like a diamond?
Bad questions thread.

>> No.6658539

>>6658527
I'd argue that without art civilization would commit a mass suicide. Can you imagine capitalism without advertisement, without movies?

>> No.6658541
File: 104 KB, 746x426, 1390893441919.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658541

>>6658507
Yes, it is an important part of culture
Culture makes or breaks society.
Europe has achieved the most when our culture flourished, and committed suicide (leftism, mass immigration etc.) when our culture was on decline through cultural marxism

>> No.6658543

We've had civilizations without science, but no civilizations without art.

>> No.6658544

>>6658537
can conscious dreamers be treasurer to their own currency?

>> No.6658545

>>6658507
There is no answer. Civilizations happened and all of them had both art and science. They contributed in many ways, "good" and "bad". So far every civilization has collapsed after at most a few hundred years. This isn't a video game where you can compare their stats, there are no odds, very few things are universal.

There is only what happened.

>> No.6658548
File: 24 KB, 450x500, 1315137803778.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658548

>>6658507
What if I told you science is art?

>> No.6658553

>>6658543
and how well were those civilizations doing?

>> No.6658556

>>6658548
Then you'd be memeing to purposely derail this thread.

>> No.6658557

>>6658543
Precisely why it's time for a change. Have you seen maze runner?
Purely scientific society hell bent on science stuff would rule so hard.

>> No.6658560

>>6658541
I didn't know you liked Dugin, Evola Kid.

>> No.6658561

Semantics.

What's really important to civilisation is resources and having somebody to exploit.

>> No.6658576

>>6658536
Humans lived for thousands of years without science.

>> No.6658596

>>6658548
What if I told you that using to be verbs make you sound illiterate. I mean, reducing one thing to annother different thing entirely tends to, facticially speaking, make language less descriptive. I will lend you the benefit of the doubt and project that you mean it facetitiously, in which case you mean somthing like 'in terms of architecturalism, both science and art as seen from the intellectual perspective lend themselves to difficult challenges; meeting these difficult challenges in actuality contains the germ of art ergo I define art as a performance virtue and not as static or objectifiable. Perfectly reasonable.

>> No.6658600

>>6658576
Humans have always had science. The process of understanding that a rock has weight enough to smash exemplifies scientific consciousness.

>> No.6658611

>>6658548
I'd think of the boy in the bubble and the baby with the baboon heart.

>> No.6658632

>>6658507
That depends on which civilization.
Are graphics more important than gameplay?
That depends on which game.

The answer is "nobody knows, and your guess works as good as mine"

>> No.6658636

>>6658576
You what.

>> No.6658640

>>6658539
without art, people would make art

>> No.6658642

>>6658507
Human civilization and indeed evolution arose due to science more than art; you wouldn't want to be here without the latter, but you wouldn't be here at all without the former

>> No.6658645

>>6658539
I don't have to imagine, I live in America and I'm looking at it.
>Hollywood is art
Don't make me giggle and spill my drink

>> No.6658647

>>6658576
>being this fucking retarded

>> No.6658685
File: 29 KB, 331x300, 1309594580677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658685

>>6658576

>> No.6658718
File: 85 KB, 480x270, jack.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658718

>>6658507
Mfw someone thinks that science and art can even be compared.
Mfw people here suffer so much from inferiority complex that it is freakin unbelieveable.
Mfw science influences art and not the other way around.
Mfw the only response /lit/ has for this is "le epic fedora maymay,hurr durr,Dawkins fan hurr durr"
/lit/ is the cancer of 4chan.

>> No.6658720
File: 20 KB, 231x150, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658720

>>6658685
Does the dark backward.

>> No.6658725

>>6658718
The television exemplifies the merger of art and science.

>> No.6658738

>>6658507
what makes something important? Its relative I guess

>> No.6658742

>>6658718
>Mfw the only response /lit/ has for this is "le epic fedora maymay,hurr durr,Dawkins fan hurr durr"

Did you ignore this whole thread?

>/lit/ is the cancer of 4chan
Nigga plz, I name other groups

>> No.6658747

>>6658725
Movies can have artistic values,but saying that science and art are merging is like saying invention of paper meaned the merger of painting and science. Technological benefits of science can give artists new tools for expression ( techniques like informel ), but that doesnt mean science and art are merging.

>> No.6658752

>>6658507
Art in itself is important to science as a whole. Without art, science cannot create, discover nor can without science; art cannot do the same. In a way, science is an art--just like art is a science.Whichever one is more valuable is without question, they are both equal...

>> No.6658753

>>6658742
Find me one post in this thread that gives one decent argument why art is more important.
Pro tip, you cant.

>> No.6658765
File: 22 KB, 400x400, 1382408393236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658765

>>6658752
>Without art, science cannot create.

>> No.6658773

>>6658753
They gave proper arguments that arent 'fedora' or reference to Dawkins. Whether or not they agree wtih you is another thing

>> No.6658776

Art makes people happy and is an expression of beauty. Science is just a fucking monster that will eventually reach a point where a mishap will exterminate the human race.

>> No.6658788

>>6658773
>I'd argue that without art civilization would commit a mass suicide. Can you imagine capitalism without advertisement, without movies?
>Humans lived for thousands of years without science.
>We've had civilizations without science, but no civilizations without art.
>Purely scientific society hell bent on science stuff would rule so hard.
They do not agree with me because I have a have brain that functions.
Also, if you think these are decent arguments that says more about you than them

>> No.6658802
File: 286 KB, 700x1984, aLK8EEW_700b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658802

>>6658776
Nice conclusion you have reached there, shame you have no evidence to support it.
You are probably the type of guy who bought Nagels "Mind and Cosmos" and found it intriguing.

>> No.6658803
File: 39 KB, 373x297, 1324585709219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658803

>>6658776
>Art makes people happy and is an expression of beauty. Science is just a fucking monster that will eventually reach a point where a mishap will exterminate the human race.

>> No.6658812

>>6658747
I should specify that invention merges art and science. Paper, television, paper mâché all count as inventions first. In order to invent; that moment when the idea first comes to you, you need a scientific knowledge set as well as somthing indescribable liken as to what we call art.

>> No.6658815

>>6658802
Not like we didn't come close in the 20th century with nuclear brinkmanship and paranoia.

>> No.6658824

>>6658812
You could argue that art acts as a unavoidable contamination.. Somthing like the imposibility of the involution of purpose or presentation of that knowledge set or the natural (or not so natural - even ingenuitive) observance of what one can do with the given; ie rock/heavy/smash

>> No.6658832

>>6658815
2 ideologies that were prevented from open confilct because they had doomsday weapons is a bad thing? ( neither side was trigger happy because with the rise of science,reason comes closely behind )
If there was no nuclear arsenal on both sides, shit would have been escalated pretty damn quick.
Also,paranoia was ideological, not a direct consequence of nuclear silos.
>paranoia didnt get man to another world and didnt cause greatest expansion of technology in the history of mankind
Also,golden hordes expansion was a far greater threat to survival of western civilisation than cold war.

>> No.6658834

>>6658752
I disagree. I consider pure art possible.

>> No.6658839

>>6658832
>neither side was trigger happy because with the rise of science,reason comes closely behind
Demonstrated clearly in both world wars. The Somme and Auschwitz were just blood offerings to reason.

>> No.6658847

>>6658812
Inventions =/= science.
Method =/= implementation of it.
> In order to invent; that moment when the idea first comes to you, you need a scientific knowledge set as well as somthing indescribable liken as to what we call art.
I am pretty sure that that is not the way science works. You see some new patterns, new posibilites that arise from your knowledge and creativity (abstract reasoning).
Your point is non existent.

>> No.6658878

>>6658839
>brutal genocide of Melos in Peloponnesian War was influenced by science.
WWI was waged against Germay because they overtaked France/UK in economic growth and was building a navy ( last bastion of UK power ) . War itself started after the Franz Ferdinand assassination ( after the investigation ) ,but Europe was on the brink of war for atleast 7 years before that. WW2 was started because USA/UK embarrassed Germany and Germans elected someone like Hitler.
Wars are started out of greed / injustice / religious beliefs ( pretty rare in modern times, thank you science ) , not as a consequence of science.

>> No.6658880
File: 29 KB, 630x630, ei43g5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6658880

>>6658839
>blood offerings to reason

>> No.6658889

>>6658576
/lit/, everyone

>> No.6658925

>>6658847
No. Consider for yourself how ideas happen.

>> No.6658946

>>6658925
Random thoughts =/= scientific ideas.
There is a different line of reasoning that determines what is a valid scientific idea/insight that might turn into a theory.
You have no need for knowledge in order to develop ideas in art for example whole postmodern art .
Also,you do not need something "indescribable" when trying to fit in CMB cold spot into a reasonable experiment for multiverse hypothesis.
You just have a misunderstanding of science, or more precisely, how it works.

>> No.6659023
File: 10 KB, 300x233, feels-good-man-thumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6659023

>>6658507
See this thread, go into it, /lit/ gets owned, /lit/ ignores it.

>> No.6659869

>>6658600
>>6658636
>>6658647
>>6658685
>>6658889

What people had 10,000 years ago was no science by any means...Smashing something with a rock is not science.
By those criteria, praying and seeing what you prayed for come true is also science.
There is no difference between the two.
Only through the modern scientific method do those become separate.

Go watch some more Sam Harris or whatever other shit you consider to be intelligent.

>> No.6659909

>>6658946
You are an idiot.
to make post modern art you have to precisely have ideas about older art forms and trends since post modern art is essentially an eclectic assortment and combination of older art styles.
Some art is vacuous and some scientific experiments are as well.
Art just has much looser criteria and any fool can proclaim anything to be art despite not knowing anything about art.
Today this is mostly the result of post structuralist/post modern tendencies that are already dying out.
Art will again become something much more reliant on high skill and knowledge within certain boundaries.
Films, for example, require massive amounts of skill to produce.

>> No.6659919

>>6659909
contd
You are just like those religious nutjobs, that point out to some failed experiment or scientific fraud, as meaningful evidence that science is bullshit.

>> No.6660515

>>6659909
>some scientific experiments are vacuous
You have got to be kidding me, noone can be this retarded.
>films require massive amounts of skill to produce
Hollywood, Bollywood and indie filmmakers are pushing out films at stupendous rates.
Also, you commented on only one statement that you do not need knowledge for postmodern art, you sir are an idiot.
>>6659919
Nice projecting coming from a man that didnt disprove anything related to my post that is part of the original discussion ( art vs science ).