[ 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: 21 KB, 320x400, clark-gable.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694767 No.2694767 [Reply] [Original]

What's the point of reading if words have no objective meaning?

>> No.2694771

>>2694767
What's the point of seeing if images have no objective meaning?

>> No.2694770
File: 42 KB, 400x301, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694770

Go away.

>> No.2694772

shut the fuck up

>> No.2694775

>>2694771
Images weren't invented by mankind.

>> No.2694778

>>2694775
Do they have an objective meaning though? By your own standards? No, of course they don't. Why not just kill yourself bro?

>> No.2694779

>>2694767
I really enjoy the shapes of the letters.

>> No.2694780

I don't get it, you didn't really troll them that hard, OP.
Why would you brag about this?

>> No.2694781

>>2694778
Yes, because they were not created by subjective beings.

>> No.2694783

>>2694781
>subjective beings
you be pretty fuddled

>> No.2694787

>>2694783
>implying humans are not subjective

>> No.2694789

Sometimes I wonder whether /lit/ is the hardest board to troll or the easiest.

>> No.2694792
File: 33 KB, 400x267, 1233783120iMyEgt[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694792

>>2694787
>he thinks he knows what the word means

>> No.2694794

>>2694767

how do you know they objectively don't have an objective meaning?

>> No.2694799

>>2694794
Because subjective beings created them.

>> No.2694800

>>2694767
they have intersubjective meaning.

>> No.2694805

>>2694800
Libtard detected.

>> No.2694810

What's the point of OP's post if words have no objective meaning?

>> No.2694812

>>2694805
>only liberals believe in intersubjectivity

Seriously, what?

>> No.2694818

>>2694812
Conservatives see things how they are. They don't dress things up and make up bullshit like "human rights" to protect undesirables and intellectually inferior thoughts.

>> No.2694820

>>2694818
>inb4 200 posts omitted
>>>/pol/

>> No.2694822

>>2694805
fucking 5 star post here

>> No.2694832

>>2694820
Trying to silence the truth? Typical libtard behavior. Somebody points out that African American males (using your term so you can't ad hom me) are statistically more likely to commit crime and have a lower IQ than their Caucasian counterparts, and you yell "racist" until he goes away, without ever offering a shred of evidence as to why what he said is so objectionable. In short, you can't handle the truth.

>> No.2694846

>>2694818
What's that got to do with the conversation we were having on intersubjectivity?

Hint: It doesn't have anything to do with it and also it's wrong.

>> No.2694850

>>2694832
but you always neglect to mention that it's inequality of opportunity that results in crime, not race. There's a correlation with race. not causation.

>> No.2694924

>>2694818
I agree that "Property Rights" are bullshit.

>> No.2695382

>>2694832
>>2694850
This. You see a similar trend on class lines and education level, too.

>> No.2695399

the point to read is to find out why they seem to have something they dont.

/thread

>> No.2695414

What's the point to living if life doesn't have any subjective meaning?

>> No.2695425

>>2695414
if you dont have something to say you dont need to post. you only makes it worst. just keep scrolling, you'll find a thread where you will have something to say

>> No.2695427

>>2695425
I do have something to say. Or are you too stupid to understand sarcasm and the use of analogy?

>> No.2695431

>>2695425
Let me spell it out for you: OP's question is asinine because "the point" of something is not predicated on objective meaning. I was illustrating that with the similarly vapid question: "what is the point of living if life has no subjective meaning?"

>> No.2695434

>>2695425
>you only makes it worst

>> No.2695435

>>2695434
GOLLUM GOLLUM

>> No.2695439
File: 15 KB, 528x434, 1334929845310.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2695439

>>2695427
>>2695431
pic related

>2012
>still using the words "objective" and "subjective" in a serious way

>> No.2695483

if words have no objective meaning, why do assume we give meaning to your words, op?

checkmate, naive faggot. now leave and never come back.

>> No.2695486

Having no objective meaning isn't the same as having no meaning. One could say. "what's the point of reading if words have only objective meaning?", for that would be a far more arid experience.

>> No.2695497

>>2695486
are you always this stupid or are you trolling?

>> No.2695518

>>2695497
I love this kind of post. The ones that say absolutely nothing. If you have such a strong objection to what I've said then elucidate it and begin a dialogue. Your reply is infinitely more stupid than my original comment.

>> No.2695526

>>2695518
no, you see, sometimes posts are just so stupid that the appropriate reaction is to sit back and laugh at how dumb they are. nobody owes you a response. no-one is obligated to take you seriously. if you're going to be a complete fucking idiot, that's your prerogative, but nothing says that we have to take you seriously instead of laughing our asses off.

different anon btw

>> No.2695533

>>2695526
> different anon btw
I don't believe you. And you still haven't said anything intelligent so there's no reason why I should care about your opinion.

>> No.2695538

>>2695533
oh no! an idiot doesn't believe me or care about my opinion! noooooo

lol. lol

>> No.2695540

>>2695538
I have an MA in English.
You?

>> No.2695542

we postmodernists now

>> No.2695547

>>2695540
i have 8 phds, and have communed with the mind of harold bloom himself using a vulcan mind meld

owned, b*tch

>> No.2695553

>>2695547
I secreted Harold Bloom from my armpit.

>> No.2695576

>>2694767

Just because there is a limit to what words can express doesn't mean they don't have meaning.
How can you even claim so when the word "objective" doesn't have an objective meaning?

OP, you are a huge faggot, go eat a bucket of dicks.

>> No.2695583

>>2695576
Including the bucket?

>> No.2695590

>>2695583

Not unless you don't want your refill.

>> No.2695591

>>2695518
it's convenient that you've got a problem with a post that questions yours.

>Having no objective meaning isn't the same as having no meaning.

for the purposes of communicating ...you're wrong. when a word lacks objective meaning it lacks a shared reality. if the reality isn't shared it's a contradiction to the whole reason for communication.

>ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
adj. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality.

inb4 intersubjectivity (which i don't deny but that's not what objectivity means)

>>2695526
this anon was correct when he/she said they were a different person.

>> No.2695601

>>2695591
The post didn't question mine. There was no question.

Your objection denies the existence of subjective meaning. You should be providing the definition of 'meaning', not 'objective'. Which sort of proves that even if words do have objective meaning, there's always some half-wit who'll miss it and make their own.

>> No.2695719

>>2695591

>for the purposes of communicating ...you're wrong.

Objective meaning as an ontological reality is probably false. Some Godlike perspective will after all just be that, the way God sees it. It shouldn't apply to reality, or be some hierarchical nature beyond reality that only God can see. We think that the God/objective is real, as an illusion, to violently overthrow anyone who opposes this God/reality; we must scream to all the ways that something can mean "IT MUST MEAN THIS, NOT THAT!" Does anyone actually do this? Of course, but not so loudly. We use our reason to constrict language to a certain meaning, to make meaning something existing inside of a word, that the "objective view" brings out. Fuck all this subjectivity that the world exists on, we are not subjects but objects, and objects see things only objectively. What this means, what that means, its all going to be that meaning forever, as meaning is something that is immortal and singular. Screw communication, we don't need to communicate, just make a squiggly line like this and everyone who comes across this will have the singular objective view that we tell them is the only proper view, that is what people will "read", and we shall communicate by fiat!

>> No.2695837

>>2695719
you just went full-retard.

at least this anon >>2695601 is reasonable in that misinterpretations happen. but reasonable people explain themselves when it happens

>"IT MUST MEAN THIS, NOT THAT!" Does anyone actually do this?

yes they do. when someone tries to explain their intent rather than content. people can understand each other. a lot of our society is built upon this idea. you come across as an absurdist who likes to jerk off just because confusion exists.

>Screw communication, we don't need to communicate, just make a squiggly line like this and...

solipsist naivety. society is built not only on communication but on the idea of people being more productive when working together.

if you're joking then good for you. if not then bad for you.

>> No.2696428

>>2695837

i could be joking, i could not be. however these squiggly lines are interpreted is up to you, monsieur. far be it from me to tell you what i meant.

>> No.2696441
File: 58 KB, 520x363, 1336603274669.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2696441

What the fuck is happening in this thread.

>> No.2696643

Trying to give an approximate answer to the original post here: If your reading a scientific paper then intersubjectivity most definitly applies, at least in the weakest sense of the word (agreement on a given set of meanings).

>>2695591
when a word lacks objective meaning it lacks a shared reality

I might be the one in the wrong here since I am no expert but I thought that the term "reality" didn't refer to purely objective existence anymore. Since our perception is always condemned to be incomplete we can not, by definition, percieve the world objectively, thus, reality is always subjective and intersubjective.

Also, I would say that the content of some very basic sentences can be objective (i.e. if I say a triangle is a closed figure with three angles and three sides and we agree on the meaning of sides, angles and shapes, then you will know that this hold true and we can understand each other).

I guess that what I want to say is that the fact that language can't reach objectivity doesn't mean it is useless, not in the written form and not in the spoken form.

Of course, as I said before, I can be awfully mistaken.

>> No.2696696

>>2696643
>If your reading a scientific
fuck me... sorry for this mistake and any other I didn't pay attention to

>> No.2698088 [DELETED] 

>>2696643
the idea of existence having only subjectivity and intersubjectivity is forever debatable. imo, if i kick you in the leg you're going to know something has happened in an objective reality. if not, there is something wrong with you. also if i say i have three dollars it isn't subjective or intersubjective unless you want to be a dipshit. say three in any language you want but the idea and purpose for saying something like three has a universal meaning we've given it. i don't say i have three dollars and mean i have two because subjective/intersubjectivity.

>I might be the one in the wrong here since I am no expert

me neither. i'm just practical and not immature.

>> No.2698091 [DELETED] 

>>2696643
you can work the idea of existence having only subjectivity and intersubjectivity as forever debatable. yet, if i kick you in the leg you're going to know something has happened in an objective reality. if not, there is something wrong with you. also if i say i have three dollars it isn't subjective or intersubjective unless you want to be a dipshit. say three in any language you want but the idea and purpose for saying something like three has a universal meaning we've given it. i don't say i have three dollars and mean i have two because subjective/intersubjectivity.

>I might be the one in the wrong here since I am no expert

me neither. i'm just practical and not immature.

>> No.2698128

>>2696643
/thread

>> No.2698489

Subjective meaning.

/thread