Based retard
>>25163139almost as if..
You hate him because you aren't brave.
>>25163139the key word in "based retard" is "retard" but because you are retarded you think it's "based"
>>25163222im trans also btw
>>25163222Trips of truth>>25163228>Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well... well... uh... TRANNY!Retarded
>>25163231i’m his boyfriend and also trans btw
who would have thought this thread would not evolve into something beautifulor is it beautifuland i am just retarded and not based>my hand does not hold up my head>my beard does not checker>the hair on the side of my head does not swoop
>>25163139You can't be a great prose writer and also be retarded. They're mutually exclusive.
>>25163252So great a prose writer that his readership today consists of Dunning-Kruger online rightists who involuntarily mutter “Based” after every modern faux pas he scribes
>>25163252One of the worst replies I have ever seen
>>25163139
>>25163258There are many great writers that have been forgotten today. Are you seriously arguing that popularity in the 21st century is the only standard of quality?>>25163259Artistic quality scales with intelligence. That should be extremely obvious.
>>25163258You smell your own farts.
>>25163266>Artistic quality scales with intelligence.*intuition
>>25163266>not intelligent enough to realize quality is a spook>not intelligent enough to realize intelligence is a spook>"that should be extremely obvious">intelligencedumb anon, see>>25163270
>>25163139Carlyle obviously wasn’t stupid. He was obviously very intelligent.
>>25163270Artists aren't just blindly intuiting, lol. They have years of practice and exactly defined ideas in their head. Aesthetic intuition is, also, an expression of intelligence, just as it depends on intelligence for its execution.>>25163287If you think artistic quality is subjective then unfortunately you've revealed yourself to be a middling intellect at best, someone addicted to holding counterintuitive opinions, or what's more likely an imbecile with sour grapes. You can cope however you want, you can claim philosophy proves aesthetic perception is subjective, but the practical experience of art inexorably follows a pattern: you will never find your own subjective experience capable of creating meaning and power in an artwork comparable to the agreed upon sensations of elite aesthetes. Which demonstrates the stupidity of calling artistic quality a 'spook' or subjective. It goes without saying, if you've never experienced such sensations, you'd be inclined to consider them subjective, like plebs always do.
>>25163309>didn't read anything about subjective quality>points finger at subjective quality>thinking meaning and power make quality>thinking spook means subjective>being extremely derogatory because a nerve was hit>not able to have a conversation without resorting to vile insult>uses common unoriginal flames such as cope and pleb>doesn't ignore someone immediately who they call middling>is intelligent
>>25163309>intelligence is whatever I want it to mean
>>25163317>>25163319It was not my interest to win an argument, but I believe I can firmly assert that these are the responses of men who have lost an argument.
>>25163332>believes they are in an argument>attempts prickly modesty>concerned with the last word>not interested in winning>interested in winning>firmly asserts
>>25163309This is hands down one of the most uninformed, pompous things I've ever read. You would think someone one such lofty intelligence would know immediately that blanket statements such as (all) "Artists aren't just blindly intuiting... they have years of practice and exactly defined ideas" is really a ridiculous thing to say. All of this comes across as someone who values intelligence way too much for insecure reasons. If your poor mother could see you now..
>>25163341>blanket statements such as (all) "ArtistsI didn't say 'all', you just added that in. It's a general truth and as such I can speak generally without specifying if it applies to every single artist or not. However, that statement IS true for all great artists. Could you name a single exception? Surely you don't think Michelangelo could have improvised the Sistine Chapel without years of training?
>>25163309>you will never find your own subjective experience capable of creating meaning and power in an artwork comparable to the agreed upon sensations of elite aesthetes.Lolwut? So pretty much trust the science?
>>25163351Ah, an autistic. Sorry, I really didn't realize. You can have it your way, it's fine. I can see that you don't have the emotional capability to understand what and how this is being discussed with you right now. Genuinely no hate or disrespect, I just didn't realize, my bad
>>25163362he's either a sociopath, stunted, or it's baitintellectualizing art this desperately isn't good
>>25163139a respectable irrationalist
>>25163362The good news is ordinary people are capable of appreciating great art and react to it more than they do to shit on a canvas.>>25163363As I said, I was speaking generally. Thinking every statement has to function as an airtight syllogism is itself extremely autistic. To repeat the question, could you actually name a great artist that didn't have years of practice? It just seems like you're desperate to defend a lowbrow idea of art for no other reason than insecurity.
>>25163362You misunderstand. Subjective here means completely disconnected from any objectivity, it's not being used to refer to personal experience. Obviously we are all capable of experiencing, to however small a degree, the beauty of art.
>>25163375Anon, I told you I'm not interested in continuing this conversation with you because of your attitude and lack of certain basic qualities of understanding. I understand this thread has gotten your ego a little stirred up, and empathizing with you, I can understand why, but I will be leaving and hiding this thread after this post is sent because I do not think you are well, and I have no interest allowing your poisonous state of mind into my sphere past what you have said already.I'm sorry you are feeling the way you are feeling right now. But it will be ok. Take care
>>25163139>The course of progressive politics (democracy) is so certain and resistless, not only in America but in Europe, that we can well afford the warning calls, threats, checks, neutralizings, in imaginative literature, or any department, of such deep-sounding and high-soaring voices as Carlyle's and Tennyson's. Nay, the blindness, excesses, of the prevalent tendency – the dangers of the urgent trends of our times – in my opinion, need such voices almost more than any. I should, too, call it a signal instance of democratic humanity's luck that it has such enemies to contend with – so candid, so fervid, so heroic. But why do I say enemy? Upon the whole is not Tennyson – and was not Carlyle (like an honest and stern physician) – the true friend of our age?
>>25163382You sound like a schizo. This is a harmless discussion about art, it's not going to contaminate your mind you spastic.
>>25163384What issue did they have with democracy?
>>25163266>Artistic quality scales with intelligence. That should be extremely obvious.nuh uh
>>25163259Name some good retarded writers>>25163292Yeah what the fuck is this thread or its point. Complete shit.
>>25163384It was funny how popular Carlyle was among American lefty types of the time.
>>25163473He was popular everywhere all over the West, he was the foremost public intellectual of his time and you’d be hard pressed to find some other great figure of the time who wasn’t influenced by Carlyle. He is forgotten today because we’ve consciously decided he should be forgotten after he became too much of a chud
I will live to commission an Emily Dickenson sexbot.
>>25163231I'm trans and I remember you from our weekly trans gatherings. You're that transwoman who goes there to suck off every visitor. Very selfless of you.
>>25163222Based. >>25163228Retard.
>>25163258Carlyle is a punk rock alternative to today's easy listening.
Carlyle is one of the great men of his time.
>>25163717Great men aren’t of a time
>>25163505>became too much of a chudAre we referring to the Latter Day Pamphlets here? Which of his positions were too chuddy?
>>25163797They are the result of a time.
