I've noticed a lot anons on /lit/ using 'story' and 'plot' interchangeably. It triggers me slightly.
But let's have a discussion that has never been entirely resolved in narrative theory, /lit/, how would you define these three terms: story, plot narrative.
Or do you prefer fabula and sjuzhet?
>>8290359
Define how you see them first.
A story relates an overall experience.
A plot is a series of connected events.
Narrative is the means of telling the story, which is elucidated by outlining the plot(s).
>>8290385
This was more or less my feelings on it. I agree.
>>8290359
>I've noticed a lot anons on /lit/ using 'story' and 'plot' interchangeably. It triggers me slightly.
What triggers me is how people like you mention a perceived mistake that annoys you but never actually explain why it's wrong.
>>8290396
It was clear to me OP was looking to learn and clarify, so I didn't expect him to be able to articulate further why it annoyed him.
Try again.
>>8290364
Story: What happens, all events in the diegesis. Chronologically in order. The substance
Plot: The things that happen in the text, often implying a causal relationship. What we are given, and the order its given in. The way the story is told.
Narrative: same as plot
>>8290398
You're assuming that all events can be connected logically.
Have you noticed that overall life proceeds illogically? That is a story.
>>8290411
>Have you noticed that overall life proceeds illogically?
Things that seem "illogical" are actually logical things you just have incomplete information on.
>>8290398
Overall experience is self-expanatory
A series of connected events can also be simplified as "the events of the story in their order of appearance", a very top-down view of the work.
>the story is a coming of age for a young boy
>the plot is he lives on his own and kills a bear, and make peace with natives to prove his worth to Pa
>>8290418
>A series of connected events can also be simplified as "the events of the story in their order of appearance", a very top-down view of the work.
So a plot is just a story with less personal attachment? Like someone's internal monologue is the story and another person's notes on the main character for a sociology paper is the plot?
>>8290416
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDii69YCh_Q
>>8290428
So a story is a highly generalized summary of the plot?
>>8290430
The personal attachment is relative. Whether it's more or less is irrelevant.
>>8290396
It doesn't really bother me, you know, it was hyperbole. I do think it's a distinction worth making, though 99% of the time you know what a person means anyway. I was just interested in what everyone thinks.
I study lit at university but I'm socially anxious af so I don't talk to any of my peers about literary theory. Just give me this, anon.
>>8290431
Except every single time in the history of observational science this has been the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
>>8290432
It can be, but that is a pedestrian definition of it.
>>8290445
>every single experience has been observed by history
I'm glad that life is mapped out. Soon we will predict the future and life will be like it is in Interstellar.
>>8290452
You wouldn't be able to make your sarcastic posts visible to other people on the opposite side of the planet through a complex telecommunications system if the world weren't mathematical and logical.
>>8290457
I wasn't being sarcastic. I believe in what I said.
You misread me.
>>8290457
>the world
>implying problems and patterns of nature can't exist in a larger metaphysical superstructure which doesn't conform to the laws of science and mathematics.
>The world is mathematical, the world is logical, the world thinks, the world is conscious.
>>8290471
You obviously don't believe:
>every single experience has been observed by history
>>8290475
>the world thinks, the world is conscious
I have no idea where you're getting those two ideas from, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about and I don't see any evidence for the world thinking or being conscious.
>>8290486
>the world is logical. The world is mathematical.
What did he mean by this?
>>8290490
So when magicians do tricks, do they get their power from the larger metaphysical superstructure which doesn't conform to the laws of science and mathematics? Or do they instead rely on misdirection and the incomplete information available to their audience?
>>8290486
I do believe it is there to be accessed.
One day, our scientific knowledge will catch up, we will be able to transcend time restraints and know true eternal life.
>>8290490
He means that mathematics existed before the creation of man and that it is not an abstract human construct.
>>8290497
What tricks can you do?
>>8290505
Mathematics existed before the human species did. Mathematics doesn't need mathematicians to exist. If a tree has fruits growing on it and a dinosaur eats two of them, it'll then have eight fruits regardless of if a mathematician is around to write about it.
>>8290513
The concept of two did exist before man.
>>8290513
*If a tree has ten fruits
>>8290515
The label "two" didn't exist. What the label refers to certainly existed long before man.
>>8290497
What are you on about?
>their power
The world can't be logical, logic is a deductive process of reasoning. You have to be conscious to be logical. And I'm not sure I can work out what "the world is mathematical" even means.
I don't know what the magicians have to do with anything.
If by 'world' you mean earth, and by mathematical you mean physical processes are predictable based on mathematical models, then yes.
>>8290517
I agree that man wasn't the first creation in the universe.
>>8290517
>What the label refers to certainly existed long before man.
Sort of maybe perhaps arguably.
>>8290519
No, what the label "two" refers to existed before any conscious being existed. Consciousness isn't required for the existence of what that label refers to.
>>8290521
I agree that the universe was relatively unconscious before the existence of man.
>>8290517
This is just a argument of semantics. It's meaningless.
>>8290525
>semantics
Totally out of place on a forum dedicated to literature.
Thinking hurts.
>>8290490
He meant "I touch myself to logical positivism please rape my asshole"
>>8290521
The label 'two' specifies quantity. You can't just have 'two' by itself. It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun. Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
>>8290525
>argument of semantics.
>meaningless.
Hang on...
>>8290533
Why don't you go win a million dollars with that non-logical, trans-mathematical thing you believe exists:
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html
>>8290538
"I am two," is a foreboding statement, isn't it?
>>8290544
You don't get it. You obviously didn't start with the Greeks.
>>8290538
I don't agree with your leap from:
>It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun.
To:
>Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
The "noun" can just be inanimate objects like rocks. There's no need for a thinking party except to come up with a label for that instance of twoness. It would still exist and display the qualities of twoness in the absence of a thinker. And then billions of years later a thinker could discover evidence of what went on and the accounting he'd do with the evidence he had would check out because twoness existed long before any thinking creatures existed to give it a label.
>>8290521
It definitely doesn't. To talk about 2 you have to have a concept of objects that are in some way group able or fungible, and more basic to that you need a way of defining or delineating so you can start to say "this is this, that is not this" etc
If you want to go down a world of forms style argument that's a different beast to your argument.
>>8290553
Not an argument. Also:
>Implying Plato wouldn't agree that mathematics precedes the existence of man
>>8290559
>objects like rocks
He's using more language again. He's trying to escape language by throwing more language at it.
Bro I feel I must imagine you happy.
>>8290559
Why do humans conceptually care what exists without them, I wonder. Boredom? Escapism?
>>8290559
If there was no thinker, then there would be nothing to link anything together metonymically, everything would just be 'infinite' things, because there would be nothing to distinguish objects from their constituent parts as 'whole' objects.
>>8290572
I'm not trying to "escape language." Language is a perfectly good tool for referring to objects and ideas about objects.
>>8290567
Plato had the audacity to elucidate as a fact that all forms pre-exist in the mind. What an idiot.
>>8290567
> Socrates is a mouthpiece for Plato interpretation
Fucking plebs. And every time that world of forms comes up there's a shit ton of aporia coming up. And the world of forms can't be said to precede anything, the whole concept of time is an illusion.
>>8290580
You don't like the idea of adjective referring to a noun and to counteract that you throw a bunch more nouns at it and now you think it's STILL a solid argument because nouns refer to nouns!
>>8290580
Language as opposed to ... ?
>>8290584
Time exists, in different ways.
Time is the most interesting and real aspect of the universe.
Time is infinity. Time is God.
>>8290590
>You don't like the idea of adjective referring to a noun
Incorrect. I didn't like the idea of one specific adjective referring to one specific other noun. You're making it sound like I'm opposed to the application of any adjective to any noun when my argument was clearly that the noun having to be a thinking person didn't make sense. The noun could just as well be an unthinking rock.
>>8290591
The thing language refers to. Pointing hand vs. moon being pointed at, pic related.
>>8290594
In the world of forms there is no time. It appears there's time because tricksy shadows dancing on a cave wall.
So it's not exactly correct to say it precedes anything, it just is. Any other ideas you might have on time may well be great in themselves but you'd need a new argument
>>8290606
He's not the same person that brought up Plato, I'm that person and I'm not him.
>>8290604
>You're making it sound like I'm opposed to the application of any adjective to any noun when my argument was clearly that the noun having to be a thinking person didn't make sense. The noun could just as well be an unthinking rock.
Let me try to understand your argument now. As you've written it it seems it has something to do with "2 thinking persons" being terrible unlike "2 unthinking rocks" (I cannot make head nor tail of this).
However looking back at the thread it seems you might be saying "an unthinking rock can think of 2 as well as a thinking person". This also makes no sense.
Like serious bro wtf?
>>8290604
My point was not that the noun was a thinking thing. My point was that 'two' is an adjective, and adjectives need a noun, you can't just have 'two' by itself, it has to refer to something. It's an adjective, and adjectives don't exist without people.
Two can't exist without people. The objects that those people name and then use 'two' to describe might exist without people, but they won't be 'two' they'll simply just random collections of tiny shit that is part of an infinite of everything or an infinite of nothing.
>>8290610
The ghost of Parmenides is clearly haunting this thread.
>>8290624
I don't understand how you're getting any of those ideas. Here's what actually happened:
1) I wrote that the thing the label "two" refers to existed long before man did.
2) Someone else wrote:
>>8290538
>You can't just have 'two' by itself. It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun. Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
3) I agreed that you need a noun, but disagreed that you needed someone to "think them" i.e. you need two rocks or two trees or whatever other noun you the two is an adjective for, but that doesn't mean you need a thinking entity to think that relationship for it to exist. The math would still exist and would still happen long before any thinking entity came into the picture. You would have two rocks with one getting washed away resulting in five rocks left on the shore just because no human was watching at the time.
>>8290606
The idea of a world of forms pre-existing in the mind is silly. That world isn't there.
It's a "theory" with an agenda that is suspect and shady.
>>8290628
If you're going to say something like "just use plural nouns then, like ROCKS"
Please don't. Plural function of a noun basically serves as an adjective. Ie, numerical functions are descriptive, meaning that they don't exist without humans. Sorry if I'm articulating this well. I've been up for over 24 hours and I'm starting to crash.
>>8290638
Do you know how to make an identifying trip for yourself?
Me, I never get confused or flustered by who said what.
I just respond to ideas.
>>8290638
*You wouldn't have two...
>>8290652
The thought about the noun needing to be conscious was preexisting, so why the emphasis on it needing to be stated?
>>8290652
Adjectives do exist without people. The label "adjective" and all the other label words that come with our language don't exist, but the things they refer to do exist. The reason we speak of them in the first place is because they exist and it's useful to work in terms of their existence. We can know about things we don't have direct sensory access to by working with numbers and discerning what must be true from their existence.
>>8290639
It isn't in the mind. It is sort of a byproduct of our human viewpoint and reasoning and so on. It's Parmenides' baby, Plato's is the Cave that marries the unchanging world of forms with the changing world of reality (Anaxagoras more or less).
>>8290669
>but the things they refer to do exist.
If the level of delineation is "existence" you are not going to be able to count to 2. You'd have "existence". That's 1.
>>8290669
If you weren't there, how do you know it pre-existed, is my original question.
>>8290670
Metaphysics is bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but Plato is Oprah-tier philosophy.
>>8290688
>>8290667
No it wasn't. The things that nouns refer to can exist without people, because they are tangible things. Adjectives, like quantifying integers, can't exist by themselves. You can just have 'two'. There has to be two something.
>>8290669
This is completely false. Please explain how and what adjectives exist without people to think them. Give specific examples.
>>8290680
Is existence one thing, or infinity?
>>8290698
Some things didn't pre-exist? I didn't know the universe and humans shared in its creation. Kind of a co-existence. That's nice.
>>8290698
*can't just have 'two'
>>8290705
Are you high?
>>8290707
I am "Two"--a terrifying superhero/villain that you cannot conceive of.
>>8290716
So explain what is two.
>>8290713
Are you naively riding the waves of my sarcasm? Get ready to crash soon.
>>8290720
You don't even know what two is m8
>>8290700
Uh oh.
> before man counting was not practical. You only had one and infinity. In fact you only had one which also was infinity.
I'm glad we have counting 2.0 now.
>>8290718
>explain to you what you what you cannot conceive of
If you don't even understand that concept, you're pretty much behind in our class.
>>8290737
The number 2 is an illusion. It is the number 1 looking into a mirror.
2 is a lie.
>>8290740
>Doesn't recognise rhetoric
>>8290757
>doesn't accept their ineffective "rhetoric"
>>8290761
Two can't exist without people to quantify things. You took on an unwinnable argument. No need to get bitter.
>>8290781
>Two can't exist without people to quantify things.
You're confusing the label for two with two.
>>8290781
I agree that mankind is the source of mathematics. I'm sure that some anon reading this will be the object of your singular attention.
Two IS a label and nothing more. There is no such thing as two without people, because it's a label. If there's no people then there's no two. What is two if not a label? How does it exist without people? If you actually had a case you'd be able to articulate it in a simple way.
If OP is still here, how confused are you by the way this thread drifted?
>>8290790
>mankind is the source of mathematics
You're confusing the symbols and labels used for a particular instance of a mathematical system with mathematics itself.
>>8290794
>Two IS a label and nothing more.
No, the label "two" is a word used to refer to the quality of two. There can be two rocks without any person around to say "hey, there are two rocks over there."
>>8290794
This is common sense, but those who are Platonic are like Gollum and they hold onto Platonic concepts of pre-existing forms like their precious.
>>8290795
I've actually been watching, astounded.
Interesting plot so far.
>>8290796
Again, with the "pre-existing forms" that exist in the nebula.
That's just mythology.
>>8290801
If you don't believe mathematics has a deeper reality than the labels and symbols used by mankind to work with it then feel free to throw out your computer and replace it with a magical flapdoodle box made out of cardboard and crayons that works just as well because lol math is just an idea.
>>8290802
The story--so wide in scope!
The narrative--biting at times!
>>8290813
To make up a "depth" that isn't there is wonderful, but that depth has no practical use and rote mathematics can exist on its own.
>>8290813
Why are you so against math not being eternal?
>>8290813
There are good ideas
>>8290842
Isn't infinity a mathematical category?
>>8290827
Why do you use your computer if you don't believe math is exists outside of being an idea of thinking creatures? Why do you drive your car? It was made with all sorts of references to mathematics, but they're just social constructs so why would you put your faith in their effectiveness and trust them to let you move at high speeds to another location on a daily basis?
>>8290844
And why are some ideas better than others?
>>8290813
Explain, then, what mathematics 'deeper' reality is.
>>8290842
I said nothing about eternity. I'm arguing against the claim mathematics only exists as a manmade idea by pointing to all the ways in which it works independent of anything we do to label or reference it.
>>8290850
Nobody has to understand the mathematical level of computers in order to use them.
Evidence of this is everywhere.
People go through their whole lives without thinking. This is their luxury and the thinking man's frustration.
>>8290849
Please try not to hop ahead of the argument by throwing more shit on there. You're hand waving a lot of shit by doing that atm. Just try to respond to the comment.
I want to know why it's so important for you that people believe there's a deeper truth to math that is like a fundamental part of existence, and that dissenters should be forbidden from using computers.
>>8290861
I said it. And you can't stop me from adding it to the conversation. Just admit you can't address it and your theories are incomplete.
>>8290856
Think of God and religion. It's parallel.
>>8290813
If you don't believe flight has a deeper reality than the flaps and movements used by birdkind to work with it then feel free to throw out your wings and replace them with a magical skypuddle stuff made out of water and ice that works just as well because lol flight is just an idea.
>>8290856
If you use your computer, you're assuming there's a deeper reality to mathematics than just the human ideas about it. If it were just a human thought idea with no objective existence independent of us underlying it then it'd be equivalent to nonsense scribbles in a children's coloring book. But unlike those scribbles, we all implicitly accept that mathematics is a real phenomenon we can build all sorts of mechanical structures around. Each time you type on your computer with the assumption you're going to be able to communicate with someone else you're creating another example of why this is true.
>>8290864
I can go with whatever you throw at me. I'm just a better player with ideas, which indicates my understanding of concepts because I know how and when to use them, and when to drop them.
I never have to "exert control" by telling someone how to talk to be. It's laughable.
>>8290877
>If it were just a human thought idea with no objective existence independent of us underlying it then it'd be equivalent to nonsense scribbles in a children's coloring book.
Why?
>>8290868
>Yes. Well done. Do mathematical categories pre-exist humans? Do categories of any kind pre-exist humans? No.
I know. We've established this.
My question is this. We know that categories of one's and two's exist. Does infinity exist anywhere that we can point to?
>>8290861
So mathematics is (a deeper part of) reality because you use your computer?
>>8290873
You're suggesting he use the wrong mathematical equations for flight.
There's nothing magical that makes things fly.
>>8290877
Mathematics is a language, used to describe and predict. It isn't much different from a language such as English, it's just more efficient at certain kinds of tasks and has a vastly different grammar.
If you were saying that physical things existed without humans, and that those things conform to certain behaviours, then your argument wouldn't be so silly. But you're basically saying that a language predates humans.
>>8290879
>I can go with whatever you throw at me.
I'm glad you have that potential, I just wish it would manifest.
>>8290898
His "profound" belief is that the things predate language which makes the things language itself. Language is not a separate entity/subject for him.
>>8290896
Because computers were built on the basis of mathematical reality and they work to do things in a way that you couldn't achieve with some other "idea" you might try to build them off of. Because mathematics is more than just an "idea," it's a reality that we discover and make use of.
>>8290897
Penguins don't fly bro
>>8290906
I don't complain about what I want, either.
You color yourself a baby.
>>8290911
Computers store information. You're not even educated in how they work.
I'm thinking that adhering to believing in pre-existing "depths" is just an excuse not to study anything.
>>8290911
How does this "mathematical reality" predate humanity or language or whatever? Computers aren't eternal bro they were invented too.
I mean yeah we can talk about a mathematical reality but it's a viewpoint made by humans took at the world around us in a certain way.
>>8290915
Your humor falls flat, bro.
>>8290911
Your argument is: there is a physical reality that can be objectively observed.
You're just using the wrong language and ideas to describe it.
>>8290932
The pre-existing knowledge "seeped" through ourselves into the universe in order to manifest its preordained destiny.
>>8290917
> don't co.mmand me!
>stop whining
> color yourself a baby
No thanks brah. Wtf
>>8290898
>Mathematics is a language, used to describe and predict. It isn't much different from a language such as English
Speaking as someone who programs for a living, the difference between spoken language and a formal language is enormous. Spoken language is like a pile of crap you smear on the wall to try to gesture at some vague idea you think you're having. Formal languages like mathematics or C++ are pure and have absolute concepts of right and wrong and there generally isn't anywhere near the ambiguity of spoken languages since formal languages have to work with real, physical reality in a functional way.
>>8290943
I reject your proffered brotherhood.
>>8290948
> Formal languages like mathematics or C++ are pure and have absolute concepts of right and wrong and there generally isn't anywhere near the ambiguity of spoken languages since formal languages have to work with real, physical reality in a functional way.
That's why I said: It's just more efficient at certain kinds of tasks and has a vastly different grammar.
>>8290940
I like this. We've dirtied the universe with ideas. Like thinking is pissing and the universe is a swimming pool.
>>8290948
>like a pile of crap you smear on the wall
You just described your own literary skills in your attempt to demonstrate your understanding of good vs. poor language.
>>8290958
Indeed. Stop thinking, go with the flow and you will smile.
>>8290932
If the mathematics used to build computers didn't have an objective existence independent of humans than they wouldn't work. We have good examples of ideas that are nothing more than ideas. Fictional stories and dreams are two that come to mind. In a fictional story or a dream, maybe a box filled with dirt will allow its owner to become invisible. In real life, this idea has no existence in objective reality. Dirt in a box doesn't actually have any sort of handle on making you less visible. Mathematics on the other hand definitely do exist in objective reality since you can make an extremely abstract series of commands run through a computer and result in the task you wanted complete getting completed on the basis of mathematics working the way it's known to work.
>>8290971
*then they wouldn't work
>>8290971
Your theory of pre-existence will never amount to more than an idea, but I grant that it makes you happy.
>>8290985
Not an argument.
>>8290960
As someone with quite a long time coding in C++ myself, it's also an awful lot like smearing crap on a wall. I might be able to conceptualise what I want that stupid box to do (and it's really quite simple things when you get down to it "compare some values, change some values, do it again!" Type shit), but it takes a long time to code it. I can delegate tasks because of this. It's also a lot slower to code than most languages because of being so low level (tho I'm trying out D atm to see how that goes solving some of those problems)
>>8290987
>the old, everything said to me is an argument
No, not really, son.
>>8290971
Type in "what is mathematics" into google.
>>8290989
We all know that coding takes a long time. We've all seen The Social Network.
>>8290992
The point is your post doesn't contribute anything to the conversation because it doesn't make an argument. It's just there to be a funny insult. By pointing out it's not an argument I'm trying to get you to focus on making a real argument so we can actually get somewhere with the conversation.
>>8290997
blasphemy!
>>8290971
>Dirt in a box doesn't actually have any sort of handle on making you less visible.
How is this relevant to your computers thing exactly? It looks like you're trying to write an argument of some sort but it's not fitting together as one, you aren't making sense m9.
At this stage I'm agreeing with the other anon that okay this belief makes you happy and you obviously find it real important and leave it at that.
>>8291000
I've not seen the Social Network tho. Is it worth watching?
>>8291013
>How is this relevant to your computers thing exactly?
It's an example of an idea that doesn't have an existence in objective reality independent of the person who had the idea, in contrast with mathematics which does have that existence in objective reality. The box of dirt doesn't work because it's just an idea. The computer does work because it's more than just an idea.
>>8291002
To assume that anything that doesn't agree with you as a direct contradiction is reactive paranoia. Actual intellectual discussion is more panoramix. You're at the level of high school debate club. Got your note cards handy?
>>8291018
It's not relevant anymore.
>>8291020
>It's an example of an idea that doesn't have an existence in objective reality independent of the person who had the idea, in contrast with mathematics which does have that existence in objective reality.
Oh no, plenty of mathematical ideas have absolutely no grounding in reality bro.
>>8291022
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an argument. It can be a non-argument with any number of different intents you might have or not have behind it. I'm not trying to read your mind, I'm just pointing out I can't work with it because it isn't an argument. I could try to insult you back I guess, but I wouldn't call that "working with it."
>>8291020
Why does the vision of Gollum with his "precious" come to mind each post I read from you? It's not that I'm trying to insult you, I can't stop the image from popping in my head.
>triggered
stfu
/thread
>>8291039
Not an argument.
>>8291033
To add, like infinity--it does not exist in reality.
>>8291034
You're assuming it's an attempt to be an argument because it doesn't agree with you.
>>8291047
No, I'm pretty sure you aren't trying to make an argument, which is the problem.
>>8291042
Not an unfunny post, for once.
>>8291027
At the time I thought Eisenberg looked way too much like Moot and 2bh I guessed it would mostly be a fluff mythology of Facebook man.
>>8291049
So, then why respond, if you desire to engage with argued points only.
Do you think you have such control that you can make people post to you in the way that you like?
>>8291055
of course it's a fluff mythology. just look at who made it. what do they know about the subject that the movie is about? not much.
>>8290418 #
That is not always the case, it is true that all events occur logically, but they may be the result of some illogical decision. An illogical decision being an obviously wrong choice being made without significant hidden information.
>>8291060
>So, then why respond, if you desire to engage with argued points only.
I'm responding to a response to one of my posts. I could just leave it without a response but since we were replying back and forth to each other's posts I continued with that one.
>Do you think you have such control that you can make people post to you in the way that you like?
No, which is why I wrote to try to prompt you to make the decision to focus on the argument yourself. I don't know what the appeal to not focusing on the argument is. There's a conflict and I want to resolve it, not avoid it.
>>8291065
Glad I was right.
I wish they'd do something more like a Glengarry Glenross type internet age movie.
>>8291075
>I don't want to to change how you post I just want to suggest that you do indirectly.
Slick!
There is no conflict. Discussion has no conflict.
"Debate" format is limited because it is binary. Subjects are much more complex than that and discussing them involves different points of viewmore than two.
>>8291085
I haven't watched Sandra Bullock's "The Net" but the preview looked awesome.
>>8291092
Death to Hegel
>>8290897
>You're suggesting he use the wrong mathematical equations for flight.
Not really.
>There's nothing magical that makes things fly.
There's nothng magical about math either.
>>8291092
I didn't say I don't want to change how you post. I said I don't have control over how you post and that the best I can do is point out that you're not focusing on the argument to try to get you to return to the argument of your own volition.
>"Debate" format is limited because it is binary.
You can move beyond just right and wrong while still having an argument. You can argue some parts of an idea are true while other parts aren't for example.
>>8291103
There can be three points of view because '3' is pre-existing and you cannot deny it, right?
>>8291103
>You can move beyond just right and wrong while still having an argument. You can argue some parts of an idea are true while other parts aren't for example.
Yeah, two of the many elements of a discussion. Arguing isn't primary.
>>8291111
Quads checked but I don't understand your question well enough to give it an answer.
>>8291119
That's because you've been debating when you should have been discussing (which involves listening).
>>8291100
>There's nothng magical about math either
You take that back
>>8291117
>>8291125
>discuss instead of debate
That's just cultural marxism. Real life has right and wrong answers. If I picked the wrong answers at work, a bunch of people would die from their medical alarm pendants not working when they fell down a flight of stairs or their fire system signals not being received when they transmitted in response to smoke.
>>8291144
>marxism bad
I can't bring myself to ever categorize a point of view and dismissively cast it aside. I view that as an aberration of the competitive spirit, aberrative because it's a glaringly obvious desperate attempt to gain ground.
I'm glad that life is a "yes/no" equation for you. I hope to one day open my eyes to your revelatory insight into the simplicity that is life.
>>8291169
It's less simple to view life as having right and wrong answers because when you work with that reality it means having to do work to get to the right answer instead of just bullshitting whatever you feel like on the basis of "subjectivity."
>>8291177
I feel the western education system has failed on many levels.
>>8291177
Life isn't simple for anyone, but not re-examining your approach or not thinking that maybe one approach isn't appropriate for all situations is simplicity in itself.
>>8291205
I think it's failed too, but probably for different reasons than you. I think most of the non-STEM subjects are better left as things students learn on their own time. Since education is an investment of public funds it should be a practical return on those funds. Creative writing and art history aren't all that practical in terms of getting a return on your investment. They're fine as hobbies people get into on their own using their own time and money, but they shouldn't be funded by the state.
>>8291227
>Since education is an investment of public funds it should be a practical return on those funds.
It should prepare people for political life. I'm p much in line with Adam Smith on this one, if you want practical skills you can pay to train your workers, but if you want a functioning democracy you need functioning citizens. I like democracy.
A story is the thing being told; the plot is the shape in which it will be told; the narrative is the resulting literary product.
That's my guess. Probably wrong, as I have not been educated on any theory of storytelling
>>8291248
It's funny, because a functional democracy would indicate a variety of options for one's education, as opposed to the didactic one proposed.
>>8291256
I give you points for trying!
>>8291259
A variety of high quality yeah. Smith has a number of arguments to limit it from practical skills tho.
So long as you avoid a banking style education the system should also have quite a bit of variance on its own. Like I'm going to guess you're thinking "but education makes people think the same :^)". Good education will not do that.
>>8291352
I think people have the right to be stupid, if they want to be. From community college on down to high school drop out. I'm not into eugenics.
>>8291376
>I think people have the right to be stupid, if they want to be.
Good education gives that choice. Read Wealth of Nations and we can talk about this. And Freire.
>>8290359
mfw when I've finally made a thread with over 15 replies.
>>8291422
We don't need to put that much effort into the concept of having a wide range of higher education selections available at one's choosing.
>>8291428
Are you truly euphoric?
>>8291445
> putting effort into anything important, no way!
Like bro you can choose to be stupid for sure but I'm just not going to want to talk to you. That's life babe.
>>8291227
Most people who haven't been to university and studied humanities/social sciences have fucking spastic reasoning and critical argumentative skills though, and yes, that includes most STEMers. As much as people like to rag on humanities/social sciences, society would be a worse place if there weren't taught in schools.
I would actually say that rhetoric and basic critical and creative thinking skills, the type you get at university, should start being taught at the same age maths and spelling are and onward. Kids need to argue and evaluate the strength of arguments.
>>8291456
Being selective as to where one invests their own efforts, doth that offend thee?
>>8291467
Seriously bro wtf do you think you're doing now?
I wish I had that cat paw stop posting pic desu
>>8291462
>I would actually say that rhetoric and basic critical and creative thinking skills, the type you get at university, should start being taught at the same age maths and spelling are and onward.
It's been interesting seeing with this Brexit thing that apparently Brits generally mistrust experts and so just throw everything out rather than having a discussion. And how much it's almost been treated like chain of command.
The reactions to failing institutions in Canada and Ireland have been quite different with there being more questioning and critical appraisal (relatively).
>>8291492
>desiring to be able to control other's free speech
It means your positions are weak.
>>8291505
That's not what's happening here bud.
>>8291520
Yet, you continue to converse with me, belying your supposed ideals of who is worthy of your presence.
>>8291428
