/lit/ - Literature

Conservatives are not alotted an equal platform in the fundamentally liberal media

>>14530707
The arguments aren't good enough. I don't think it's possible to argue against the post modernism that dominate in the art today.

>>14530736
>I don't think it's possible to argue against the post modernism that dominate in the art today.
Explain, please

>>14530817
When someone says everything is subjective. You can't prove that one type of art is better than another. It seems impossible to me to argue against this.

>>14530707
Beauty is good

LIKE WTF NIGGA...AAAHAHAAHAHAA...JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES MAN....AAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

>>14530707
Not enough people read it, maybe that roger is dead now people will start to take an interest in his work

>>14530707

Because the SJWs won

It's a weak argument that requires us to keep art preserved in aspic with no innovation. Imagine telling Joyce 'sorry James, you can't do this stream of consciousness fragmented narrative stuff, it frightens the horses. You have to imitate Dickens as closely as possible'

>>14530707
Too many smoke breaks

>>14530707
European high-aesthetics were a by-product of authoritarian Christendom

You can't just decide to start making beautiful things. Aesthetics of culture are downstream from the larger Zeitgeist which is downstream from religion

>>14531064
What about the greeks?

>>14530916
this. Before Burke, beauty = the sublime. Afterwords, the sublime > beauty. The heavenly arrangement that mirrored the universe found in the form of ancient literature has been thrown away for the chaotic feminine that is the stream of consciousness: disordered trash. Long gone are the days where you had to be measured by the works that have withheld the test of time since antiquity in favor for O R G I N A L I T Y.

>>14531215
Gay, but good.

>>14530707
Not enough outrage.

>>14530707
Because a far greater book on beauty was already written.

>>14530707
It's basically just an intro to aesthetics.

After this read Aesthetics I & II by Dietrich von Hildebrand

>>14531215
>he thinks Greeks are Europeans
lol get a load of this kid

>>14530707
Because conservatives are arguing like they always have and the world has moved on. Things change. Art changes.

>>14533088
>christcuck
no thanks

>>14533091
Except they are in every sense of the word. They even invented the term.

>>14533134
while there is some tiny grain of truth in what you say

Greeks are too fucking good to be lumped in with Germans and French, they are a distinctly superior people with a magnificent, unequalled legacy. They passed these traditions on to the aforementioned lower races, but did not lower themselves to become "European" like them. They stand apart between east and west with their own unique beauty. That's all I meant.

>>14533091
we're in a time where a nigger who accidentally is born in Italy or Germany is automatically and without any kind of doubt an European but the fucking Greeks aren't European

>>14530916
That's both right and wrong.

I can't prove Rowling is worse than Joyce, but I can prove that she: uses more cliches; has a worse prose style, with less musicality, more unintentional internal rhyming, repetitions, smaller vocabulary and command of the English language; less knowledge of the literary tradition, which weakens the power of allusion and therefore the richness of meaning of her words; worse command of metaphors and other such devices; less consciousness of the creative process; less self-reflexion; worse grasp of philosophy; characters who look like dolls instead of actual humans etc. etc. etc.

None of that proves she's worse, but it shows that you need to have very peculiar and intellectually mediocre aesthetic ideals in order to not consider her worse than Joyce.

Words like "better" and "worse" are subjective. I myself prefer talking about "rich" or "charged" works, in the sense that they have richness of meaning, being "charged" with it. A work which uses too many clichés, too many adjectives, too many stock characters ends up having no meaning of its own, and is therefore poor; a work which uses language in a precise way in order to express new things (not necessarily new ideas or forms, could be just a new character - but an original one) has lots of meanings of its own, and is therefore richer, having more to offer to those who read it.

>>14533166
look at this dirty-footed French mongrel trying to claim the Greeks for his backwards-ass continent. look at him and laugh.

>>14533166
Greeks and Italians are Meds. Same for Spaniards and Lusitanians.

"Europe" is something of a Catholic, Carolingian, and post-Islam concept, really... Back in St.Augustine's day the North of Africa was part of the world, part of Rome, while places like Scandinavia were nothing but barbarian lands. Genetically I think there's more similarity between Greeks and Turks, Syrians, Lebanese or Jews, than between Greeks and Danes.

>>14533180
you will never be European, burguer. just cope with it and stop this labelling shit

>>14533177
None of those really work against the postmodernist who is just gonna say he is working on a different framework than you.

>>14530916
A good kick in the head should work.

>>14533227
Of course not.

But he will have to admit that he's working under a framework in which clichés and low verbal skills are deemed higher or more desirable than originality and verbal talent.

For most people, I believe that's enough to show that his framework is less fruitful and less interesting than the traditional frameworks (classical, romantic, baroque and so on). But if they don't feel like this, well, there's no argument that can be made, only you can objectively show that they will be reading works which have little meaning and little originality, besides being ridden with technical flaws. If that's what they like, however, good luck to them. I don't care. But doesn't mean we should stop trying to persuade people, specially younger ones whose tastes are still being formed, that some works are richer than others. This is what Scruton tried to do, and actually seems to have had some success in it - specially in his defense of traditional architecture, which is now becoming a talking point of the political debate, something that it didn't really use to be.

>>14533223
>you will never be a shit-smeared troglodyte from the of the teutonic blacked forest, stay mad american pigdog!
lol ok

>>14533209
this anon gets it

>>14533265
How can you show that the postmodernists have little meaning or originality? They would say they have tons of it and give examples of things that were original or had meaning in their work. What would you say was wrong with postmodern architecture or avant garde film? With avant garde film for example. You can't deny it's original and they write many books on the meaning behind the works. You can't use criticism you would for normal films with these works since they aren't normal films. How would you argue against them?

>>14533290
When did I say avant-garde cinema is poor art?

I didn't. I am making a distinction between so-called "bad" (objectively unoriginal, lacking technique etc.) and so-called "good" (the opposite) art, not between "good" and avant-garde.

There are works of so-called "postmodern" art which are "good", and there are those which are "bad". Same for traditional art.

>>14533329
So then you're not critiquing postmodernism your critiquing bad postmodernism. Doesn't really help the problem then.

>>14533337
I never said I was criticizing so-called "postmodern" art. I myself enjoy a lot of it, specially in the novel and in cinema.

The only so-called "postmodernism" I may have criticized is the relativist trend espoused by some philosophers who call themselves, or are called by others, "postmodern", and this has little to do with actual "postmodern" art.

>>14530707
I feel like Scruton is only of interest to people who are already on board. People will never wake up

>>14533153
That's fucking retarded. The ancient Greeks left an extremely influential and enduring legacy but they haven't done jack shit since antiquity. You're posting using technology developed by Northwestern Europeans now. Take your shitty /int/bait to >>>/int/.

>>14533351
so then why post fucktard 30 minutes of your life to say nothing important

>>14533209
Genetically there's a European cluster that's Greeks are a part of and all the sandniggers you listed aren't. Sure, there was more in common between Greeks and middle easterns 2000 years ago but that was you know 2000 FUCKING YEARS AGO! Times change Nassim. Med is not a race. You're a smelly Arab boomer who needs to fuck off back to twitter.

>>14533358
Jews are Meds, and they are the main force behind modern science and technology. You can't seriously look at a picture of Wolfgang Pauli or Einstein and say they look Germanic. Einstein looked 100% like Super Mario. Med phenotypes through and through, alongside an upbringing based on a lot of Med culture (Judaism).

>>14533358
>all this seething and coping
lel, it's not bait it's just the truth you square-headed forest ape. tell me more about how we wuz romans but holy n sheeit, mister germania and bohemia.

>>14533363
Your reading interpretation is absolutely terrible. You can't keep in mind the points which are being discussed. The first guy I replied to made a subjectivist assumption, and I showed to him that, even so, art still has objective measurements which, in practice, work almost as well as the subjective measurements would in case they were shown to be objective.

Good night.

>>14533358
>Developed by Northwestern Europeans

Steve Jobs was a Med, though, wasn't him?

>>14533388
That's already obvious though. My original points still stand.

>>14533396
If that's obvious, you should have mentioned it, as it adds an enormous amount of nuance to what would be otherwise total subjectivism indistinguishable from other, more extreme types.

>>14533377
>behind modern science and technology
Jews did not start the Scientific or Industrial Revolutions. Jews did not invent computers or the world wide web. Pauli actually looks pretty central european to me. Einstein not so much. Ashkenazis have lots of different phenotypes.
>>14533387
>we wuz romans
Why would I want to be. The Romans are dead. I'm also an Amerimutt, not from Europe.
>>14533393
Steve Jobs contribution to the development of the modern computer is the Apple logo.

>>14533404
Why would I have to mention something so obvious? We aren't 12 year olds. It's kinda default that every know thats. That's why I thought you were going somewhere else with it.

>>14533418
Your first point is also a very well-known, obvious cliche. Maybe you shouldn't have posted anything to begin with. Anyway, good night.

>>14533412
Indeed. The scientific revolution was started by blonde white Swedes like Galileo and Descartes.

You're right that Jews weren't the beginners, but they are among the greatest developers.

And Pauli looks central European because central Europe was filled with Mediterranean-looking Jews.

>>14533445
It answered his question bucko but you didn't answer mine

>>14533445
>Indeed. The scientific revolution was started by blonde white Swedes like Galileo and Descartes.
I wasn't aware that guys like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Brahe, or hell, even Descartes were "Meds" When the fuck did I say anything about sweden or blonde haire and blue eyes you fucking schizo?

>And Pauli looks central European because central Europe was filled with Mediterranean-looking Jews.
Dude literally looked like a pudgier reviewbrah. Please tell me how in the fuck reviewbrah looks "med" to you.

>>14533458
You didn't even get the point. Your question didn't apply to my point. My point was to insert nuance into your blind subjectivism, and *only* this.

>>14533461
Look at his pictures when he was young. Looked like a Southern Italian or a Mexican.

But anyway, keep dreaming, storm-idiot.

Awful thread. Good night.

>>14533490
The only reason you think it's blind subjectivism is because you're dumb and you don't realize that everyone already knows what you were trying to argue. You're the only one who reads my statement and thinks blind subjectivism.

>>14533490
>Looked like a Southern Italian or a Mexican.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1221531/files/178.jpg
Eh, not really but choose whatever you want to believe you little internet larper you.

>>14530916
You started using the example of people who say "everything is subjective", but I pointed out that there are so many objective things which are agreed upon by so many people when it comes to aesthetic evaluation (technique, mastery of vocabulary, grammar and rhetorical tools etc.), that in practice, it's *as if* it were objective, which therefore means it's no really subjective, but rather intersubjective.

No use arguing with you though. Makes no sense arguing with someone who, when kindly corrected, uses the dishonest trick of claiming he already knew it but didn't say so because it was too "obvious".

>>14533607
No I said everyone knows it not just me which is why you're the only one who responded in that way. It's okay though you're a genius for showing us all there are other ways to judge art than just saying good or bad.

>>14531215
Other anon argument remains true with appolinian and jovial cults.
In spite of multiple cries about art for art, it is incased in a worldview. Turns out the common recent and current worldview, whatever you call it, the soi civilization, is not very determined towards beauty.

>>14530916
The irony is that subjectivism is dependent on the blank slate to be true, that we lack innate drive and preference.
Like the other said, Intersubjectivity is the closest to objectivity. If even objectivity exists independently of the living subject, we can at least not know it.

>>14534163
>Intersubjectivity is the closest to objectivity.
intersubjectity is still subjectivity and is still limited by subjectivity. you dont understand the term.

>>14534202
You're an idiot lol

>>14530916
For that you actually have to prove that everything is subjective, which is impossible. Hence everything isn't subjective.

>>14535212
No you have to prove something is objective.