Literature is like any other artform, completely subjective and without merit in respect to hard science. Writers may make us think, but they'll never construct real permanence. Is reading simply an exercise in romanticism?
>>7472723
>hard science
>>7472734
>implying without argument
>>7472723
This is the most spooked, ignorant post I've ever seen. Hard sage.
>>7472893
Cool argument man, made me change my perspective on things
>>7472723
"writers may make us think"
The brain is like a muscle, my friend.
>>7472723
Pretty certain this is, let's just say, satire.
But I'm also certain there are people who more or less have feelings that express themselves into these very sorts of statements.
So which is it, friend? Convince me you're serious, and I'll answer your question.
>>7472723
reading a book is thinking another persons thoughts. its more than just paper. words are symbols that transcribe meaning unto the reader. we trivialize writing because it is ubiquitous, commonplace, everyone can do it, and its uses are many and varied. from the vulgarities scribbled on a bathroom stall to a philosophical treatise, writing is an integral human art-science.
writing transcends time. you cant just say writing is shit because you dont agree with the idea of a novelist. its simply far too profound of a thing for some dilettante scientism fetishist like you, who coming from a secularized machineculture consumerist world to trivialize.
>>7472723
literature created love
prove me wrong
>>7472723
All things are meaningless; nothing has intrinsic value. Stay spooked.
>>7473179
If parents didn't "love" their children the human race would have died out long before the written word considering kids are a real pain in the ass, especially if you're a mobile hunter - gatherer.
>>7473450
that isn't love. you know it too, that is why you needed to quote it. i used love unquoted - the love that first comes to your mind when you see the word. don't be pedantic. anyway, you're just describing a primordial need to see our seed live on. that is in no way love or "love." if anything it could be argued to be very a egotistic notion.
look at op's question
>is reading simply an exercise in romanticism?
it is that, but op does not take into account what romanticizing can do. taking into account your example, the romantic notion of love has elevated us from not only wanting our kids to succeed, but wanting our kids to succeed regardless of their chance for survival. it is why we see those disgusting series of picture of parents attempting to raise their braindead children.
>>7472723
>without merit in respect to hard science
what does this mean? plenty of things are unscientific or non-physical, but that's not to say they can't create real permanence or physical change in the world. What about things like marriage, criminal convictions, making a reservation at a restaurant or firing an employee? All of these are things which arise through literature, or at least, through textual material which doesn't simply describe, but 'acts': saying 'I do' at a wedding describes the state of matrimony, but it also brings that marriage into being. likewise, if a defendant is found 'guilty' it is a description of their wrongdoing, but is simultaneously an action which condemns them to imprisonment. If you want to think about this in terms of artistic literature, it isn't going too far to say it does something very similar, albeit in a far more abstracted way of generating ideas which have the capacity to catalyse the actions of its readership, often into producing something of 'real permanence'.
>>7473179
love is a word that describes a chemical reaction in the brain designated for the survival of animals based upon tribal groups, reproduction, and the care for newborns in order to secure the survival of a species.
>>7475137
love might be produced by such a chemical reaction, but that isn't the same as saying it 'is' or describes what is physically occurring in our brain. You've made a fallacious correlation between biochemistry which produces the perceptual experience of love, and love itself, which is something inherently non-physical and can't actually be described by science.
>>7475166
>love might be produced by such a chemical reaction, but that isn't the same as saying it 'is' or describes what is physically occurring in our brain. You've made a fallacious correlation between biochemistry which produces the perceptual experience of love, and love itself, which is something inherently non-physical and can't actually be described by science.
Wrong. Love is a word to describe the biochemical reaction. /thread.
Stop being retarded like Aristotle. Love is nothing special or floating in the ether. It's exactly what I said.
/
THREAD
>>7472723
how valuable would living be without the joy of art. jesus are you some kind of freakish automaton?
>>7473179
God exists.
OP is b8ing, but this is what many stem autists actually believe.
>>7475172
>Love is a word to describe the biochemical reaction
actually, the word you're probably looking for is 'oxytocin', which doesn't even do the process of biochemistry justice. You can't boil down the concept of brain function down to a word, silly, where's your scientific empirical rigour?.
>Love is nothing special or floating in the ether
learn to read, I said nothing of the sort. Love is part of perceptual experience, which is neither physical, nor special given the widespread presence of sentient life, nor 'floating in the ether'.
>>7475201
>ou can't boil down the concept of brain function down to a word
Yes you can. It's called a defined term you dumb cunt.
>>7472723
but anon desu if you reduce and abstract everything wont you eventually just be probing your engorged rectum with a telescope in a vacuum.
>>7472723
STEM majors generally score higher on AQ (autism quotient, quantifying tool for measuring the severity of autism) than other people.
The more you know.
>>7475137
Why can't autists into qualia?
>>7475212
>nitpicking
>'dumb cunt'
>>7475212
if we are using defined terms, no dictionary matches your definition of love. are you aware ?
honestly you seem out of your depth with no handle of language. love is not a word used to describe any biochemical reaction. to be as pedantic as you, please cite a single peer review paper where a biochemical reaction was described as love; not similar to granting and/or reproducing/giving off the notion of "love."
you see these chemical reactions existed before the present day experience of love existed. i suggest you read up on the etymology of the word love. love and eroticism by octavio paz is a good starting point.
also, no one suggested love floats in the ether. again, i am referring to the word love bc we are discussing literature and its power to define and alter our perception of an experience.
>>7475264
>peer review paper
/new/ here.
How do you write those?
