Why does /lit/ consider nonfiction, specifically philosophy nonfiction, to be "patrician?" It is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of a) did you understand what was said and b) did you agree with it or not. It has nothing to do with art.
bump .
>>7235277
>It is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of a) did you understand what was said and b) did you agree with it or not. It has nothing to do with art.
Maybe if we're talking about a list on Wikipedia, but most nonfiction is prose text composed to varying quality by researchers of varying ability.
Why do you assume your preposterous presuppositions based on observing the behaviour of an uncountable number of anonymous users posting ironically and sincerely and simply for the sake of it is worth questioning like that? /lit/ as a gestalt entity barely qualifies as a spook, it should be so obviously transparent.
>>7235277
define "patrician"
>>7236270
This is bad nonfiction prose
>>7235277
>fact cannot beget beauty
(sunglasses emoji)
>>7236270
jesus, tighten that shit up
>>7236270
>tfw this reads perfectly easy to me, because all I read is unnecessarily lengthy philosophy
because >muh intellectual inferiority complex is the correct answer regardless of whatever counter-argued rationalisation there may be
That's just part of /lit/. Some of us feel contempt for the philosophy plebs.
>>7236280
beauty is not a property of the observed thing.
