/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7406758]

What do you guys consider to be the best theory of aesthetics?

I would really like that someone one day could discover some kind of unchangeable and almost mathematically verifiable idea of how to evaluate art. It would be nice if phrases like “everyone has its own taste” and “beauty is relative” were simply demolished, and some form of precise and immutable way of analyzing art and beauty could be created. If such a thing could be achieved there would not be any room for charlatans and mediocrities, and only people with real talent and training would be respected as significant artists. The great purge that the world would witness would be really a wonder to contemplate: “artists” and “writers” and “musicians” all around the globe would be forced to face their own mediocrity, and nobody would be able to present any excuse to validate their taste. If somebody could discover a 2 + 2 = 4 critical evaluation of art that would be one of the greatest achievements of the civilization.

Yet I know this is impossible. This is just a dream: we are doomed to subjectivism for all eternity. Aesthetics have been studied now for almost 3.000 years and still there is not a scientific and unquestionable measurement that we can apply to art. But, among the aesthetic theories that have been worked this far, what is your favorite?

[Anonymous No.7406766]

>>7406758

She had a nice aesthetic until she got a tattoo. Now she's less than mediocre.

You have shit taste in beauty, OP.

[Anonymous No.7406770]

Plotinus' aesthetics. Beauty as the signpost to the One

[Anonymous No.7406777]

Subjectivism and objectivism both is wrong and doesn't describe reality as we conceive it. Those are abstract concepts. Reality is somewhere inbetween. As is art. It's not completely relative as much as it is no completely absolute.

[Anonymous No.7406781]

fuck off

[Anonymous No.7406794]

>>7406781

Make me, faggot

[Anonymous No.7406817]

>>7406766
Euphoric

[Anonymous No.7406861]

>>7406758

Longinus, The Sublime

[Anonymous No.7406881]

Try Ayn Rand you mouth breathing pleb

[Anonymous No.7406897]

>>7406758
I like how your motivation to discover an objective aestheticism is to affirm your intuition. Your belief in "real talent" and "real training" is just as silly as the simplistic rebellion from those beliefs we call modern art.

[Anonymous No.7406909]

>>7406758
All I know is such gaudy pornography has nothing to do with aesthetics

[Anonymous No.7406921]

>>7406758
Fagget this is a blue board.

You gonna get someone fired.

Also not lit, sage hide and report guys.

[Anonymous No.7406973]

>αἴσθησις
>literally perception or feeling
I know what you mean OP, but I feel like AESTHETICS just isn't the right word for it. I'm German myself so the meaning might differ, but for the full picture you need something like "aesthetically pleasing".

[Anonymous No.7406983]

>>7406758
THANKS A LOT my boss came behind my back saw this talk of aesthetic objectivism and has now fired me, he added, relative to my job

[Anonymous No.7407002]

>>7406758
>Yet I know this is impossible
dude just read the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy page on aesthetics

[Anonymous No.7407007]

>>7406983

[Anonymous No.7407063]

>>7406817
He's right though. Photoshop the tattoo away and she becomes so much more desirable.

[Anonymous No.7407086]

>>7407063
I agree, but that doesn't mean she's "less than mediocre" as of now.

[Anonymous No.7407093]

>>7407086

Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous No.7407456]

>>7406973
4chan and the internet have altered the english language. you are LITERALLY wrong.

[Anonymous No.7407480]

>>7406897
I've always thought that people who strongly advocate for objetivity and loathe subjectivism like OP always fail to realise the inherent subjectivity of what they want to prove in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7407485]

>>7407456
what

[Anonymous No.7407520]

Brush up on your post-modernism and critiques of post-modernism.

So that when your hippie lib arts nose ringed purple hair skinny jeans wearing faggot friend tries to convince you that a blank canvas or period blood smearing or Allen Ginsberg nonsense is art, you can rip off their heads and shit objective knowledge down their ragged neck hole

Post-modernism is a scourge upon culture and aesthetics and it's our duty to eradicate it

[Anonymous No.7407528]

>>7407520
Amen.

[Anonymous No.7407530]

>>7407520
>>7407528
/pol/ pls go

[Anonymous No.7407534]

>>7407530
Don't associate me with those tinfoil retards please

They probably couldn't even define "post-modernism"

[Anonymous No.7407547]

>>7407520
>everything bad in art happened in this, most recent, ~50 year old period
Nah

[Anonymous No.7407551]

>>7407534
define "post modernism"

[Anonymous No.7407560]

>>7407534
i don't acknowledge whatever little distinctions you tinfoil retards think there are separating you all.

[Anonymous No.7407563]

>>7406758
Sam Harris has a book called "The Moral Landscape" wherein he makes a very strong case that there could be/is an objectively correct moral spectrum

If something as seemingly subjective as ethics or morality can be shown to have a scientifically correct set of standards, I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to say the same is possible for aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.7407565]

>>7407560
Butthurt post-modernist detected

[Anonymous No.7407566]

[Anonymous No.7407567]

>>7407563
>Sam Harris has a book called "The Moral Landscape" wherein he makes a very strong case that there could be/is an objectively correct moral spectrum

psa: pic related

[Anonymous No.7407568]

>>7407563
>If something as seemingly subjective as ethics or morality can be shown to have a scientifically correct set of standards
It can't

[Anonymous No.7407569]

>>7407547
Not all art in this past 50 year period is post-modernist in nature

[Anonymous No.7407578]

>>7407565
>calling random people post-modernists

i bet that makes sense in your head

[Anonymous No.7407579]

>>7407567
>>7407568
read the book fagtrons, I'm not about to sit here and try to summarize his entire book and its hundreds of references

[Anonymous No.7407583]

>>7407579
It'd worthless anyway, can't be done.

[Anonymous No.7407585]

>>7407583
>willfully staying ignorant

I can't force you to educate yourself

[Anonymous No.7407591]

>>7407579
i've read the book, it's trash. the guy has zero clue what he's talking about. literally some random STEM aspie walking into a discussion about ethics and thinking he has any clue of what's being discussed.

it's pop-philosophy in the worst sense of the term.

i.e he can’t think, he can’t write. no discernible talent.

[Anonymous No.7407599]

>>7406758
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U
I can't remember in which one of the 4 parts he says it, but he talks about how good art doesn't need to be explained and even a child can understand and appreciate good art, whereas bad art needs to be 'explained' and forced into the description of art, that you need an art degree to 'get' art, that instead of letting the work speak for itself there needs to be a plaque which explains why this particular piece is art.

[Anonymous No.7407607]

>>7407585
Can't be done mate. Morality is a social construct, it can't be objective.

[Anonymous No.7407610]

>>7407607
>Morality is a social construct, it can't be objective.
hi, reddit! *tips trilby*

[Anonymous No.7407611]

>>7407591
>degree in philosophy from Stanford
>Ph.D. In Neuroscience. From UCLA
>2 New York Times bestsellers
>PEN award

>no discernible talent

You are not very good at discerning

[Anonymous No.7407619]

>>7407610
>posts no argument advocating otherwise
>spouts le reddit + fedora meme
I'm not surprised you're the kind of guy that reads Sam Harris. Stop posting anytime

[Anonymous No.7407622]

>>7407607
Social Construct is a nonsense term fabricated by people so they can justify anything

Ex. If gender was a social construct then a man could put on a dress, wig and makeup and be a woman. But we know that he is still a man.

He actually tackles the issue of "social constructs" in the book. Don't criticize until you've read it, reddit

[Anonymous No.7407627]

>>7407611
funny that the only relevant 'achievement' in that list you posted is a B.A in philosophy.

>mfw an undergrad publishes a book on how he solved morality and idiots take him seriously

[Anonymous No.7407628]

>>7407619
>spews age old meme bullshit like "Morality is a social construct, it can't be objective."
>wants people to take him seriously
Stop posting anytime

[Anonymous No.7407632]

>>7407627
How are you browsing /lit/ when you obviously cannot read?

[Anonymous No.7407640]

>>7407632
>pls equivocate talent with me it will make harris look good

nah senpai im good

[Anonymous No.7407644]

>>7407607
Beheading innocent people is bad.

Just proved you wrong

[Anonymous No.7407648]

>>7407611
>appeal to authority


Is this a discussion over religion or philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7407653]

>>7407648
I wasn't trying to appeal to authority, he said Sam Harris had no discernible talent, which is incorrect

[Anonymous No.7407657]

>>7407622
>Ex. If gender was a social construct then a man could put on a dress, wig and makeup and be a woman. But we know that he is still a man.
Agree, because of biology we know that. Is there any scientific test you can apply to morality to determine what's moral or immoral? No, because it's a human construction, invisible barriers for living in peace in societies.

>>7407628
Waste of a post, you said nothing

>>7407644
It's bad because we determined that, not because it's an objective truth beyond human observation

[Anonymous No.7407663]

>>7407644
Define "innocent". Define "bad". Define "people".

[Anonymous No.7407666]

>>7407657
>Waste of a post, you said nothing
Waste of a post, you said nothing

[Anonymous No.7407667]

Aesthetics, like ethics,are basically just irrational like vs dislike that isn't properly captured in any specific systematic approach.

[Anonymous No.7407668]

>>7407657
>is there any scientific test you can apply to morality

Yes, there is. He shows it in the book. Read the book, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

[Anonymous No.7407669]

>>7407579
The book is absolute garbage and so is his argument, I remember he made a contest challenging people to send him an essay proving him wrong and some guy thoroughly blew every last bit of his argument out. Harris' response to the critique was one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read.

[Anonymous No.7407677]

>>7407666
literally satan

>>7407668
>Yes, there is. He shows it in the book. Read the book, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.
I seriously doubt that, but i'll read it.

>>7407669
This i could see happening.

[Anonymous No.7407678]

>>7407668
Holy fuck read some Hume anytime you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.7407681]

>>7407622
Loads of things are social constructs, and identifying them as such allows you to deal with them in a more objective manner. Saying that gender is a social construct does not obligate you to perceive a transsexual as their chosen gender, but it can help you get a handle on a society with different gender roles than your own without going full Jesuit missionary.

[Anonymous No.7407682]

>>7407677
>literally satan
literally reddit

[Anonymous No.7407684]

>>7407663
>define people

Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.7407686]

>>7407682
>literally reddit
Hello reddit

[Anonymous No.7407689]

>>7407644
>opinions are facts

[Anonymous No.7407694]

>>7407686
>Hello reddit
Hello reddit

[Anonymous No.7407695]

>>7407622
Is government a social construct? :p

[Anonymous No.7407696]

>>7406921
>not getting fired by merely browsing 4chan

[Anonymous No.7407697]

Harris was BTFO centuries before he was even born. The reason he's so smug about his answers is that he's so ignorant about the history of philosophy. Severe Dunning–Kruger.

[Anonymous No.7407698]

>>7407663
>semantics

The lowest form of discussion.

[Anonymous No.7407702]

>>7407520
>>7407528

i'm with you guys.

Fuck Pollock, Picasso, DFW, Pynchon, Ezra Pound, Duchamp, Artaud, Allen Ginsberg, and the likes.

If you don't have the talent and the colossal courage and patience that it takes to be a real artist than shut the fuck up and don't vomit your trash upon the world.

[Anonymous No.7407704]

>>7407689
Are you of a different opinion?

You wouldn't mind if someone beheaded your mother?

[Anonymous No.7407707]

>>7407698
Your mom's the lowest form of discussion.

[Anonymous No.7407710]

>>7407704
Do you mind with Da'ish beheads innocent people in the Middle East? Or do you idly sit by?

[Anonymous No.7407711]

>>7407702

[Anonymous No.7407712]

>>7407698
What makes it the lowest and not the highest?

>>7407704
The opinion itself doesn't mean shit, only the fact that if you switch a moral argument around it is still just as valid. So I can say beheading innocent people is a good thing and there is absolutely nothing (nothing) that can ever objectively prove me otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7407714]

>>7407710
That doesn't even make sense, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>7407712
>So I can say beheading innocent people is a good thing and there is absolutely nothing (nothing) that can ever objectively prove me otherwise.
Now THIS is quality shitposting.

[Anonymous No.7407716]

>>7407714
Go ahead, I'm waiting for you to prove that killing innocent people is bad.

[Anonymous No.7407717]

>>7407702
Woah slow down big guy

I hate post-modernism, but Pollock's abstract expressionism was brilliant and Picasso's surrealism is beautiful. Not to mention that Picasso painted wonderful and detailed realist pieces before he got bored and moved on.

But otherwise yeah I agree

[Anonymous No.7407723]

>>7407520
po-mo is dank as fuck

[Anonymous No.7407726]

>>7407716
You're alive right now, why haven't you killed yourself already? Life is objectively pointless, we're all dumb animals, so slaughter yourself like one. Prove me wrong.
mom look i poopyposted like the 4Chan man:D!

[Anonymous No.7407728]

>>7407702
You accidentally half of modernism as post-modernism, lad.

[Anonymous No.7407729]

>>7407723
>you will never stuff that VCR up your ass while kissing that bust
Why live?

[Anonymous No.7407733]

>>7406921
I'd fire someone for browsing 4chan at work whether they were looking at porn or not.

Pic related to thread, aesthetic perfection.

[Anonymous No.7407736]

>>7407712
But there is something that can prove you objectively wrong, it's called neuroscience and the human condition.

The science of human flourishing, as Harris casually refers to it.

[Anonymous No.7407737]

>>7407726
You're such an idiot, but at least you're more intelligent than Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.7407740]

>>7407733
She's a good looking girl but perfection is a strong word when it's so easy to be annoyed by her nosehair game.

[Anonymous No.7407745]

>>7407702

>Picasso

"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."

- Picasso

I'm not sure if Picasso had the balls or the brains to actually say it's all shit, but he at least had one or the other, and that's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.7407747]

>>7407712
Semantics is the final refuge of the uneducated. You would be getting laughed out of the room right about now.

[Anonymous No.7407749]

>>7407740
>nose hair game
I don't see any nose hairs on her. Do you mean that her hair could tickle your nose when you spoon her? Because that is pretty annoying.

[Anonymous No.7407751]

>>7407737
I'm an idiot because I threw back the shit-smeared ball you threw at me? Fuck off, you idiot. How about another one
>Tell me the meaning of life. Go on, I'm waiting, big guy.
Ooooh I got you so good, dude.

[Anonymous No.7407752]

>>7407733
>terrible fashion sense
>asymmetric smile
>huge nose
>shitty hair

4/10

[Anonymous No.7407754]

>>7406758
>I would really like that someone one day could discover some kind of unchangeable and almost mathematically verifiable idea of how to evaluate art
This would literally end art; I mean, it would lead to complete stagnation: no growth would occur.

[Anonymous No.7407756]

>>7407749
You need to zoom in further or get a better screen, there's a bunch of black hair creeping out of her nose.

[Anonymous No.7407763]

>>7407678
Go read some Kant fuckface

[Anonymous No.7407770]

>>7407726
No because I don't want to. What I want to do or not doesn't change the fact that my preference was always subjective to begin with.

>>7407736
Yeah sure scientific facts are completely objective, adding a value judgement to them is a completely subjective interpretation though.

It's just like in game theory, game theory provides a method to attain the highest possible gain, however the results you get are completely dependent on how you defined the gains from all possible outcomes in the first place. At this point only the method itself remains objective, since the results will always depend on whatever arbitrary maxims you are accepting. This is a key fact in all sciences, all results are true only relative to a set of axioms that are arbitrary and not demonstrable.

>>7407747
Only because you accepted an arbitrary hierarchy of argument "power levels" in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7407773]

>>7407733

And this is the site of OP's pic:

http://en.alisaverner.com/about/

[Anonymous No.7407776]

>>7407752
I always thought this girl was absolutely beautiful when I saw this picture in the past... All I can see now is her crooked face. Wow.

She's actually kind of ugly... I think her age is the only thing that makes her seem attractive

[Anonymous No.7407778]

>>7407747
Semantics is the thorn in every objectivist's side that they just can't explain so they'd rather just ignore and deem it as meaningless.

[Anonymous No.7407780]

>>7407756
That's the little bits of fuzz most people have all over their face growing on the rim of her nostrils and contrasting against her nose's shadow. It seems like something a model or photographer would think to get rid of, but it's not old-man nose hair.

[Anonymous No.7407783]

>>7407770
>No because I don't want to. What I want to do or not doesn't change the fact that my preference was always subjective to begin with.
But objectively your life is worthless.

[Anonymous No.7407784]

>>7407726
>If there's no objective meaning to life I might as well kill myself
This is the conclusion that would be drawn by a handicapped little faggot who has no confidence in his own value judgments. "Please mommy give me more dogmatic values to live my life by so I don't have to make decisions for myself!"

[Anonymous No.7407785]

>>7407780
It's disgusting black nose hair to be quite frank, it should be done away with.

[Anonymous No.7407789]

>>7407783
The concept of worth is subjective. But it's true that under an objectivist viewpoint life would be worthless, good thing nobody lives that way.

[Anonymous No.7407791]

>>7407752
>>7407776
Most people find very slight asymmetry nicer than perfect symmetry. Absolutely flawless bilateral symmetry on anything looks artificial and starts to creep into the uncanny valley when you see it. I think that's part of why freckles are so nice on beautiful girls.

[Anonymous No.7407798]

>>7407784
But that's what you're doing, you're condensing a huge question down to
>"le nope :D it's this way cuz i said so :D"
you fucking idiot.

>>7407789
>The concept of worth is subjective
"worth" is subjective, life is objective.
>good thing nobody lives that way.
Yeah because they apparently do the right thing objectively and kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.7407801]

>>7407791
>Most people find very slight asymmetry nicer than perfect symmetry.

most people are idiots and their taste is wrong

[Anonymous No.7407802]

>science is objective
>old hags are attractive
>>7407733
Nope. Still an old hag.

[Anonymous No.7407806]

>>7407791
It also looks sort of boring, being "too" perfect. It just ends up looking too fake and average in a way.

[Anonymous No.7407808]

>>7407696
How my office is furnished, my supervisor can watch my screen directly.

I open and browse /lit/, right in front of her, hell sometimes the manager comes in and sits right behind me, and I continue browsing.

[Anonymous No.7407809]

>>7407798
Life is objective, life is good is subjective.

[Anonymous No.7407822]

>>7407809
I give up, you have out-shitposted me and I'm done trying.

[Anonymous No.7407830]

>>7407773
Dude no nudes, you want the mods to delete the thread?
Are that report fag using a pic as a passive aggressive way to get the thread deleted?

[Anonymous No.7407839]

>>7407830
>Dude no nudes, you want the mods to delete the thread?

yes, it's worthless

[Anonymous No.7407840]

>>7407770
You say that controversies about human values are controversies which science can officially have no opinion.

But questions about meaning, morality and life's purpose are really questions about the well-being of conscious living creatures.

Values, therefore, transfer into facts that can be scientifically understood, regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of laws and social institutions (not constructs) on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering etc.

Just as facts about physical and mental health transcend culture and subjectivity, so can facts about values. Cancer in Nigeria is still cancer, cholera is still cholera, schizophrenia is still schizophrenia.

Compassion is still compassion and well-being is still well-being. If there are culturally different ways to raise happy, intelligent children-- these differences are also facts that MUST depend on the organization of the human brain.

We can account for the ways in which culture defines us within the context of sciences like neurobiology and physiology. The more we understand ourselves on the level of the brain, the more we will be able to see that there are right and wrong answers to questions about human values.

[Anonymous No.7407844]

>>7407840
Congratulations for making the only post worth something in this thread.

[Anonymous No.7407850]

>>7407801
I'm talking about their immediate impression, not the judgement they come to after studying the face for a while. People react more positively to a very good looking girl with just a slight asymmetry than to the same girl photoshopped to be perfectly symmetrical.

>>7407802
Yeah, we'd all rather have her when she was 14, but she's still worth knocking up and abandoning.

>>7407830
Probably. Whenever threads here go full /pol/ it's common to see extra-aggressive shitposting that I'm pretty sure is just to run the post count up and get it deleted.

[Anonymous No.7407863]

>>7407850
>Yeah, we'd all rather have her when she was 14, but she's still worth knocking up and abandoning.
Don't be edgy.

[noodle bro No.7407871]

1+1 does not always equal 2, what is really 1? Sure in the mathematical sense that true but you plus me is 2 ppl but does not equal 2.

Back to art, i think art needs these mediocrity and subjectivity for art to compare something to and evolve and bring innovation

[Anonymous No.7407876]

>>7407871
What are you even talking about dude

[Anonymous No.7407878]

>>7407840
>positive and negative social emotions
>Compassion is still compassion and well-being is still well-being.
That wholly depends on what you define as positive and negative. Neuroscience can only determine well-being in a human being only if a certain pattern being observed in a patient's brain resembles that which the observer itself as defined as well being in the first place.

Neuroscience only gives us the tools to observe certain patterns, and that's it, the pattern is there and is devoid of any value, the science is neutral, the observer is the one that labels them as "good" and "bad" patterns. None of the concepts you mentioned transcend culture and subjectivity.

Even if you break the entire problem down the most black or white distinction possible between good and bad, even then you would still be faced with the matter vs antimatter problem, there is still no way to define which one is the "anti". It's like defining up and down, you impose a coordinate system, there is not an already existing one, all of science would still work if suddenly everyone decided to postulate that up is down and down is up. So is the case with neuroscience, I could switch the "good" and "bad" labels on every brain pattern around and the method would still remain the same.

[Anonymous No.7407882]

>>7407863
>don't be edgy
Enjoy your dried out old pussy and defective children.

>>7407840
/thread

[Anonymous No.7407886]

>>7406758
>objectively most beautiful thing
Well this why don't you just define a metric?
My metric is NUM_OBSESSIVE_FANS, so japanese cartoons of prepubescent girls are currently the most beautiful things in the world

[Anonymous No.7407888]

>>7407878
>That wholly depends on what you define as positive and negative.
Holy fucking shit stopped reading right there, you're an actual fedora, not like the joke but genuinely a complete idiot who thinks he's smart.

[Anonymous No.7407891]

>>7407702
>If you don't have the talent and the colossal courage and patience that it takes to be a real artist
How do you mean "real artist"?
It seems overly vague considering the weight of the criticism.

[Anonymous No.7407894]

>>7407882
I started dating my girl when she was 13. Lrn2read

[Anonymous No.7407897]

>>7407888
Oh wow such a strong retort, I bet you're picturing me snickering gleefuly and putting another mark on my "internet debates won" list like the fat fucking neckbeard I obviously am.

[Anonymous No.7407905]

>>7407878
If science has theoretically developed and objective moral system based on my concept of good hundreds of years ago, events such as the rape of Nanking, the Serbian genocide etc. could have been totally avoided.

You cannot just sit on the fence. At some point a side must be chosen.

I believe that my concept of good is the correct one and there is nothing you can do to change my mind. You cannot convince me that pain and suffering are somehow good just because it is theoretically possible.

We're done here. Go read the book.

[noodle bro No.7407911]

>>7407876
Art needs to be subjective because if it isnt then there will not be different opinions to adjust to the changing time era and evolve accordingly. Can you imagine if people always thought the baroque era to be ultimate in music and we are still stuck with that mindset and still composing in that style for a few centuries accordingly to the "rules". Art needs to be subjective and have different opinions for it to evolve and weed out the less important work through time

[Anonymous No.7407916]

>>7407894
>I started dating my girl when she was 13
That's nice. Is she going to talk you into not getting her pregnant until she's 30 so she can "see the world?"

[Anonymous No.7407918]

>>7407905
had* an* fucking autocorrect

[Anonymous No.7407925]

>>7407905
Everyone that committed those attrocities you speak of thought exactly like you in the first place. Every extremist thinks exactly the way you're thinking right now. Maybe it's the obsession with the existence of one true universal set of moral values that creates all that conflict in the first place, not the failure to find it.

>You cannot just sit on the fence. At some point a side must be chosen.
>I believe that my concept of good is the correct one and there is nothing you can do to change my mind.

You're like a parody of objectivists at this point.

[Anonymous No.7407928]

>>7407916
She wants to get pregnant in 2016 (born in 1999)

[Anonymous No.7407932]

>>7407702
Could you expand on your criticism of Ezra Pound?
I am not convinced by the three lines you posted.

[Anonymous No.7407939]

>>7407925
The difference being, their moral system was either race-based or religion-based.

As opposed to humanism-based.

[Anonymous No.7407944]

>>7407939
Yeah that totally makes a big fat fucking difference.

[Anonymous No.7407947]

nuke this fucking thread and everyone in it

[Anonymous No.7407961]

>>7407925
Holy shit, do you have 1 single conviction? Do you just float around in an ether of subjectivity and indecisiveness? Have you ever been able to explain your beliefs and values without an apologist attitude?

You're just a parody post-modernist politics and culture at this point.

>ebery 1 is equls and no 1 is rite or wrong lets jus sit an smile an hold handz!

[Anonymous No.7407964]

>>7407702
I hate post-modernism, but DFW is a pretty cool guy

[Anonymous No.7407967]

>>7407891

Someone whose work is so beautiful that the person who experience it might think that, if heaven exists, then it is made of things like that (and I mean beauty even in terrible tragedies of human life or in deep sorrow, like the Tragedies of Shakespeare or some of Beethoven late quartets). An artist is someone who produces beauty; such human beings seem to be one of the only ways that the Universe seems able to achieve an orgasm: it's a moment when a fragment of existence (a human brain and body) creates some sort of small universe within the universe.

The human mind seems to be the only way that the Universe an think about the universe: it is some sort of mirror for the Universe to contemplate himself and think about himself. Now, you might laugh at this image, but it seems that great art is a kind of masturbation of the Cosmos: it pleasures himself, it builds upon a great mountain of pure joy and pleasure using parts of its own anatomy.

tl;dr: real artists create breathtaking and awe-inspiring works of beauty, even when they use terrible things as source material.

[Anonymous No.7407982]

>>7407967
And how is Ezra Pound not a "real artist"?
Curious, because I found something in his poetry that was not necessarily what you described,
but still important to me.

[Anonymous No.7407985]

>>7407961
Not him, but some people have the balls to accept that they live their lives by relatively arbitrary rules of thumb that can be reevaluated and aren't based in some cosmic singular truth. It's not something you can change, and honestly it seems to work fine.

>>7407939
>humanism-based
Yes because humanists always agree with one another on important points. Everyone thinks there's something worth killing for.

>>7407928
That's actually pretty cool, but I think the girl in the pic you were calling an old hag is 17 herself.

[Anonymous No.7407986]

Well, to drew a line between bad and good lit you have to know the criteria you consider the best ones. Can you do that?

[Anonymous No.7407992]

>>7407985
My wife has become a hag

[Anonymous No.7407995]

>>7407944
Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

HUGE fucking difference.

>>7407947
What's wrong, too many big words?

[Anonymous No.7408000]

>>7407939
Humanism is arbitrary nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7408007]

>>7407967
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/174/174-h/174-h.htm#chap00

[Anonymous No.7408010]

>>7407982

I did not read all of his work, so I was being unfair with him.

I did not like what I have read so far, and the fact that he says that musicality is the most important thing in poetry (above the sense, for example, and above imagery). I also think that his critic of mixing the concrete and the abstract in language is quite naive (for example, a lot of the greatest moments in Shakespeare are achieved precisely by making this connection "milk of human kindness", "a pluck drowned honor by the locks", "and pity, like a naked newborn babe", etc).

[Anonymous No.7408013]

>>7407992
I'm sorry to hear that.

[Anonymous No.7408019]

>>7406758
That is one ignorant fucking dream you've got there. Maybe one day it will be art brut.

[Anonymous No.7408031]

>>7407717

>Picasso
>surrealism

Please read a book about art.

[Anonymous No.7408040]

>>7408031
What the fuck are you talking about

Picasso was surrealism and cubism

Google "surrealism artists" and he's right fucking there

[Anonymous No.7408059]

>>7408031
Picasso did produce some surrealist paintings under the influence of Andre Breton, if I am not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.7408191]

>>7407733

[Anonymous No.7408210]

>>7408191
>>7407733
>women wearing makeup
>aesthetic perfection

Hahaha good one

[Anonymous No.7408217]

>>7408210

[Anonymous No.7408229]

>>7408191
I would 'have sex' with Audrey Hepburn.

[Anonymous No.7408237]

>>7406758
No theory of aesthetics is possible because the experience of beauty is beyond that of the ability of language to describe it.

Whereof what one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Anonymous No.7408256]

>>7408237
Good post. Aesthetic discussion must create an aesthetic experience in the reader to be worthwhile imho.

[Anonymous No.7408302]

>>7407563
>>7407579
Sam Harris is a moron. He had a debate with Chomsky and showed himself to be an utter simpleton. I don't know why anyone would take a guy seriously whose shtick is that he doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective, anyhow.

[Anonymous No.7408424]

>>7408237
That's bullshit. Critic AND theory can show to us a potencially infinite kinds of readings that our little and particular brains cannot reach alone. Theory can potencialize the strangement and the wonderment that literature can make us feel. What I am saying is quite obvious: the faith in a particular and closed reading, centred only in yourself, is just amour-propre; no one can be really amazed if only reach in literature - or in the mirror - the things that you already know.

[Anonymous No.7408547]

>>7406758
>>I would really like that someone one day could discover some kind of unchangeable and almost mathematically verifiable idea of how to evaluate art. It would be nice if phrases like “everyone has its own taste” and “beauty is relative” were simply demolished
Welcome to computer algorithms rendering humans obsolete even in arts
might as well just kill yourself now
"Subjectivisim" is the only good thing art has going for it, fuck off

[Anonymous No.7408572]

>>7407995

So who decides what is the "solely rational ways of solving human problems"? One self-proclaimed humanist could tell you eugenics, another transhumanism, another taking in refugees, another utilitarian ideology.

Why is the "human good" something we should strive for? From what metric do you derive that from?

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7408640]

>>7407702
[1]

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7408648]

>>7407644
That's literally nothing but an opinion. Anyone could say the exact opposite and you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong without using undefined terms, and, in the end, your feelings.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7408652]

>>7407985
>thou cretins
Whoever wrote this is literally retarded

[Anonymous No.7408656]

>>7408640
>>7408648
>>>/trash/

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7408660]

>>7407985
I fucking hate these memes, they suck so fucking bad, the English is not even close to either middle or old. It's just fucking normal English with fedora shit and a few "thou" in there.

[Anonymous No.7408668]

>>7408652
>>7408660
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.7408672]

>>7408217
She was a whore, slept around in hollywood

[Anonymous No.7408679]

>>7408672
>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.7408682]

>>7408672

Oh my god, she liked sex!

I don't care about that. I would like it: would do all kinds of things with her.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.7408687]

>>7408672
>I'm preserving myself for the one pure girl, which, like me, shall be 26 years old and still a virgin, waiting for her savior to come teach her everything, so that she gets to admire said savior and adopt his lifestyle usually imcompatible with that of a grown man or woman!
just fucking kill yourself senpai

[Anonymous No.7408689]

>>7408672
There is nothing wrong with c.uckoldry.

[Anonymous No.7408691]

>>7408679
/tv/ occasional fag here.

She was passed around, you know of the casting couch yes? They executives sleeping with actors and actresses to give away roles, yes?

I would have gladly put my willy in her well used, possibly infected vag, but doesn't change the fact she a hoe.

[Anonymous No.7408693]

>>7408687
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.7408704]

>>7408689
>>7408687
>>7408682
>>7408679
Jesus, all of you putting words in my mouth, I would fuck her, she still a whore.

Are you a fedora tipper? Is she some chaste lady of virtue?

Lel

[Anonymous No.7408706]

>>7408691
>thinking i was disputing the actuality of the claim

>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.7408754]

>>7408704
Whore is an extremely problematic term. I prefer the term sexually active. You literally need to check your privilege.

[Anonymous No.7408767]

Silly OP
The Bechdel test is what you seek ;-)

[Anonymous No.7408799]

>>7408754
If it was chad, he would be a whore too.

Get your tumblcunt out of 4chins

[Anonymous No.7408805]

>>7408799
>If it was chad, he would be a whore too.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.7408827]

>>7408805
Then you're sexist. Go away.

[Anonymous No.7408831]

>>7407520
>implying you have friends

[Anonymous No.7408864]

>>7408827
We're talking about facts honey, not opinions.

[Anonymous No.7408884]

>>7408864
All I can imagine is a fat weeaboo sitting on his computer, continually refreshing this page, anticipating new (You)s, and confident in himself for telling a dastardly woman--scourge of the Earth and a creation of the Devil--off.

[Anonymous No.7408890]

>>7408754
No it's not, you hussy skank.

[Anonymous No.7408907]

>>7408884
Then your reading comprehension is extremely low.

[Anonymous No.7408911]

>>7407667
>Empiricism
Its as if we dont know we exist until we see a mirror!

[Anonymous No.7408913]

>>7408884
rekt

[Anonymous No.7408922]

>>7407563
>Someone decided to republish Utilitarianism with a new cover
>People actually ate it up
There isnt much hope for this world I see

[Anonymous No.7408946]

>>7408256
I like yours better. The idea that beauty cannot be talked about seems silly; you can analyze anything really. But I am in the boat that no amount of description mimics the feeling; thats why continental philosophy has triumphed in aesthics, it isnt afraid to simply draw out the feeling itself.
Imagine if Kant had more developed works on Aesthetics that mirrored his Ethical ones. I believe they could be equally fruitful in their insight.

[Anonymous No.7409018]

Wouldn't the best theory of aesthetics have to be the most beautiful?

[Anonymous No.7409043]

I bet that these two guys talking up here are the feminist and the sexist guy who were fighting earlier.