Which vidyas have the best philosophy?

I don't know but I really liked the ideas presented in The Talos Principle.

Attached: 1548136984199.jpg (980x360, 50K)

>also bioshock infinity lol
Because they really aren't interesting. I like Talos, it was a fun and charming game, but what made the story was the humane side of the the story. The philosophical shit was mostly completely pointless and shallow.

Yakuza.

I've never played a Bioshock game and I didn't ask your opinion. Never respond to me again.

NieR and NieR: Automata.
Camus was right. Shit's absurd but you just gotta roll with the blows.

Path of exile and some of what Izaro says. Most of his lines are absolute drek, but there are one or two that hit home

Attached: 17f0f0_6034570[1].jpg (1200x636, 173K)

Clearly the post was replaying to your note about Talos, and merely misquoted the greentext.

I'm curious Yea Forums, what games would you consider art? I'm not asking if games are art, because not every painting is art. Some paintings are true art, but not all. So what game would you consider true art? Is there any?

Such as?

Half-Life games, especially if you also include Epistle 3.

Attached: descarga.jpg (1024x576, 157K)

Planescape Torment
MGS2
Deus Ex
Nier Automata

All games are art. This isn't a compliment. Art is not a positive descriptor, it's a neutral one.

Yume Nikki
Shadow of the Colossus
That's really it for me. There are many magnificent, superb games, but only those two immediately come to mind when I think "this is art, the goal is not to get to the end but simply to experience".

Attached: 1543557602108.jpg (899x1200, 243K)

>I'm curious Yea Forums, what games would you consider art?
Pathologic
The Void

Honorable contenders:
Homeworld
Bastion
Silent Hill 2
Cryostasis

>Art is not a positive descriptor, it's a neutral one
Nope. It's literally and exclusively a label of prestige. It actually does not really mean anything else.

Pokemon

> Art is not a positive descriptor, it's a neutral one.
This
Kill yourself

You can screech your insecurities as hard as you want: it's true. It's literally the sole function of the word. I know you are not actually mentally stable enough to accept the ramification of that, but your sorry insecure ass isn't enough of a reason to completely change a concept that is both a cultural universal and tens of thousands of years old constant.
We are not changing that just because you can't life in a world where the broader social outlook does not always validate yours.

near tomato

A lot of games have elements that allow them to approach art but never quite get there. Like a football game where the players have dressed up as Allied and Axis soldiers. There is art in there (even if shit and non-subtle), but as a whole it's just a football match.

Based.

You are mistaking the notion of art asset and the notion of an art as institution.

Goes in depth into the moral question on what is human. It's pretty thought provoking but Yea Forums won't admit it

Metal Gear Solid 1, for its story telling.
Metal Gear Rising, especially how they implemented the music. I also like how the music tells the story of the characters.

Attached: 1535690051104.png (258x544, 105K)

baba is you

Talos Principle
Nier:A

>ctrl+f neir
>4 results

weebs are the worst kind of pseuds

Attached: 1552673299459.jpg (581x767, 92K)

The irony of making a spelling error while mocking someone's intelligence.

Attached: 1529088011551.jpg (546x784, 41K)

>In philosophy
>Professor asks me about the concept of evil
>Put on the spot, start panicking but remember a certain quote from Witcher 3
>"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definitions blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all"
>Professor looks stunned, class gives me a round of applause

all games are art.

Now if you're talking about actually good art that sold well and brings catharsis and meaning, Shadow of the Colossus, Papers Please, or Bloodborne are up there.

pseud is a real word brainless incel.

Who /Epicurus/ here?

Attached: .png (600x338, 101K)

But the video game is called "Nier", you colossal faggot.

Attached: 1430470514619.png (861x720, 350K)

Hatred

Swapper was a nice, although pretty surface level. They didn't contact Dennett or David, so it's kind of weird for them to be so heavily featured, but whatever.

The Talos Principle tries but mostly fails. Arguing with Miton is still pretty fun, though. Just don't expect anything out of the audiologs.

Soma is a pretty decent take on philosophy, but the caveat is that the main character is explicitly, in-universe a dumbass so a lot of it goes over his head. Nice use of philosophy to deliver a fucking devastating emotional gut-punch, though.

Bioshock 2 has some of the best nuanced moral choices ever put in a video game, for what it's worth. Each of the three decisions actually has a pretty good point/counter-point for an intelligent player, if you choose not to pick based on the fairly obvious gameplay rewards.

The Age of Decadence isn't so much philosophical, but it does have a fairly lengthy decision tree which lets you try to roleplay a personal philosophy.

Echo is an astoundingly beautiful game that tries really, really hard to sound deep. The music and visual design are fucking amazing for an indie game, but the game itself kind of sucks and if the dialogue and ideas don't really catch your interest, they sound incredibly fucking stupid.

Hellblade: Senua's sacrifice has a somewhat philosophical theme that it commits to, but ultimately ends up folding on. It's pretty fun, though, for what it's worth.

soma

Attached: 1540711540047.jpg (730x544, 207K)

>tfw he didn't believe in posityive pleasure as a value, but rather the absence of pain as the ultimate good
Truly, a life undisturbed by desire and pain is the best.

Attached: 1317107321294.jpg (927x1318, 604K)

Zeno's paradox isn't real because an infinite amount of infinitesimal values collapses into finite numbers! Race that turtle!

That is amazingly wrong. He did explicitly believe that pleasure is a positive value, and the single most important engine of existence.
He merely correctly noted that there is an "economy" of pleasure, complete with things like devaluation of pleasure, sustainability issues and so on.
Which is why he ended up recommending modest lifestyle over an opulent or hedonistic one: not because he mistrusted pleasure, but because he genuinely believed modesty LEADS TO MAXIMIZATION of pleasure in the long term perspective.

fuck, and I was getting my hopes up that by some measure my meaningless life might be considered sufficient.

Around things that may or may not be happening with no sure way of empirical resolution-
Do nothing.

See, you're fucking retarded. His ideas are clearly cross-pollinated with the eastern shit that was going on at precisely the same time. Namely, the Buddha and the emergence of the no-self philosophy. They both target 'desire' as the primary cause of life's problems -- because we desire for good things, we become disappointed when we cannot have them. This is why Epicurus suggests moderating desire for good things first and foremost, and why his idea of a good life was a life untainted by pain, rather than a life of optimized pleasure. His greatest good is the absence of pain, not the pleasure qua pleasure.

"Don't desire a good meal, but satisfy yourself with bread and water." When gifted cheese on a special occasion, Epicurus commented that he would eat like a king for months.

His ideal state of being is 'ataraxia' -- best translated as "tranquility." Does this sound like a state of maximized pleasure? It's a state of not being in pain! It's undisturbed peace. The notion that modesty leads to a pleasure maximization is also retarded, because that's already covered by Aristotle's generalized notion of the golden mean leading to optimization.

Doing a truly moderate amount of cocaine is going to lead you to have more pleasure than not doing any cocaine -- but for Epicurus the entire notion of even being desirous of a pleasure introduced a fundamental flaw. By wishing for more pleasure, you introduced the pain of not having that wish fulfilled. Best do away with the desire entirely then, and you'll never be troubled by not having pleasure. This is the life that Epicurus told his followers to live.

He was unwilling to dispense with the notion of self, because the Greeks were a much more proud and individualistic society than the Asian cultures of the day. Of course, perhaps dispensing with the notion of self is retarded, but that's a discussion for another blogpost.

tl:dr you have a naive and uneducated view of Epicurus, he was not a positive hedonist

Attached: 1433696550126.jpg (706x1000, 1.48M)

Soma is a surface level analysis to a problem that everyone is already familiar with.

youtube.com/watch?v=KUXKUcsvhQc

There, you've played Soma

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi

See part 4, paragraph 6 for an incredibly brief overview of what I'm talking about.

>true art
No such thing. Art is art, regardless of the perceived 'purity'

Eastern philosophy is extremely cowardly. Achieve transcendence and full congruence with yourself and who you are but don't isolate yourself from the world and do nothing. That's one step above apathy and is cowardly and ultimately anti-life and anti-thought. The ultimate way to experience life in all it's splendor is to realize the inherent value of everything around you, let go but not isolate yourself, live it fully with every sensory experience you can gather from yourself and other people, within the boundaries of not bringing irreversible physical and mental harm to yourself obviously.

Yeah, sure, whatever, I don't particularly care about Eastern mystic mumbo jumbo. It's as bad as, if not worse than the kind of grand theory that continental philosophy tends to weave. Epicurus, however, was clearly in conversation with the idea of "desire" as the font of all misfortune, which was the hot topic of Eastern philosophy at that time. easterners put out Buddhism, which goes a step beyond Epicurus' own philosophical conclusions.

Whatever tangent you're going on about doesn't have much to do with Epicurus.

Attached: 1316965658164.png (1611x1075, 2.23M)

Nier?

Fucking hell that last codec between Raiden and the AI not only was terrifying but also came true.

Metal Gear Rising.

Are you retarded. That just fucking validates every single fucking thing I've said. Have YOU fucking read it?

Nope. Literally denying the immortality of soul, literally putting JOY into the centre of human existence: the fucking OPPOSITE of Buddhist philosophy. In fact, he was the least eastern-influenced thinker of his time, Plato was thousand times more inclined towards Indian pathos. God dammit you fucking retards.

You literally do not know a single shit about any of these subjects. Why do you vomit shit online about things you KNOW not to be educated in?

Probably Deus Ex

to clarify I say probably because games arent very philosophical, and when they try to be its usually pseudm "philosphy" written by some balding numale faggot about his post-post-modern middle class concept of the world
I have yet to see a game that is on the level of a movie like Blade Runner or GiTS 1995 for instance
Deus Ex comes closest but its mainly political rather than philosophical

I should conciede one thing upon reflection. I did use the word "Pleasure" wrong earlier. It's true that Epicuros does not actually celebrate pleasure, but instead, he draws a distinction between Pleasure and Joy. He does warn about people becoming to obsessed with Pleasure, because he believes that will ultimately result in increase of suffering. Instead, he advices to maximize joy, which is a "refined" form of pleasure.

But then again, you commited very similar mistake. You claimed that he advocates absence of suffering, and that is not true. He advocates maximization of Joy. Ataraxia is not a state of absence of pleasure, it's specifically a state of perpetual joy, which is what makes him stand far apart from Buddha.

Buddha advocates complete detachement from your body (because, like all ascetic thinkers, he believes in immortality of soul and it's substantial difference from physical world): he advocates absence of pain, even though it comes through an ABSOLUTE DENIAL of oneself.

Meanwhile, Epicuros is exactly at the opposite side of the spectrum - he refuses to believe soul can be in any substantially differenciated from body, he rejects immortality of soul, and concludes you have to fully embrace yourself. To simplify it a bit: Epicuros advocates finding joy in the most common and available surroundings. Buddha advocates detaching yourself from your surrounding as much as possible.

unironically FIFA

>androids are people OR ELSE
>androids are monsters OR ELSE
>androids are slaves OR ELSE
Even Automata did a better job at what you just explained

Isn't that also Buddhism?

>Ataraxia is not a state of absence of pleasure, it's specifically a state of perpetual joy, which is what makes him stand far apart from Buddha.
>Buddha advocates complete detachement from your body (because, like all ascetic thinkers, he believes in immortality of soul and it's substantial difference from physical world): he advocates absence of pain, even though it comes through an ABSOLUTE DENIAL of oneself.
Enlightenment is a state of bliss in Buddhism as well though. The Buddha receives joy in all things, it is just that these pleasures do not anchor Buddha, he can drop them and walk away without a moment's hesitation. If pleasure comes, then it comes, it is not sought or craved in any way, because he is already as blissful as can be.

Jesus christ you people exist

They should make a siege of troy game where the gods come down and physically fight on he battlefield.

Attached: zuesfuckingagrilLeda_-_after_Michelangelo_Buonarroti.jpg (677x500, 125K)

But the gods never personally intervened in Troy, it was very specifically a proxy war.

it is buddhism. it's NOT epicureanism.

>Enlightenment is a state of bliss in Buddhism as well though.
No, it really fucking isn't. The word, "Nirvana", literally means "disappearance" or "being extingushed". It's a suicide. Especially in the oldest and presumably most accurate Buddhist teachings: Nirvana is buddhism is actually most akin to SUICIDE. In fact, it's literally your only shot at getting out of that god-forsaken circle of literally endless pain that is existence.
Buddha does not recieve joy, he merely rejects suffering. Joy and pain are both equally meaningless to him. While later iterations of institutionalized religion softened a lot the incredible pessimism of Buddha's teachings, the fundamental notion still remains:

Buddha wants to get out. But unlike his own Hinduistic teachers, he is sceptical about what awaits him. Philosophical Hindu believes in Atman, the highest diety and identifies human soul with it. They believed that if they can escape the cycles of reincarnation, they will be reunited with Atman, and reach a state of perpetual bliss.

Buddha did not buy the whole Atman notion. He does not believe there is NOTHING more to existence than the inherently suffering-based, endlessly repeating life.
He still choses that NOTHING over suffering.

Epicuros would not agree or probably even understand any of that. He was a pure pragmatic, a materialist from our perspective. He seeks the most pragmatic way to be happy. He just believes Pleasure isn't the most efficient path (because that means to be a slave to your body), so he choses joy, in which in which you get to CHOSE what brings you happiness, rather than having your body do it for you.

But he wants to just live a long, happy, satisfying life. If he could chose to be reborn, I'm sure he'd want it.
Meanwhile most of Buddha's teachings are all about how not to be reborn again.

Talos principle is a good candidate

Attached: talosPrinciple.png (500x121, 23K)

In the classic case of Wittgenstein weeping in the nearest corner, our issue is obfuscated by semantics. Alas, the fate of philosophy! However, I think you've clearly laid out the crux of things:

Epicurus viewed the optimal state as one of "Joy." This state can be reached when a person is not troubled by pain. When a person is in this state of "Joy", they experience what we can call Epicurean Pleasure, which is distinct from what we would mean in the common usage of the English word 'pleasure'.

I contend that Epicurus thought ataraxia, the joyful state reachable through the absence of pain (which is to say, free of unfulfilled desire), is not related to what any hedonist/utilitarian talks about when they discuss living in a state of pleasure. For Epicurus, the best state of living is a joyful one -- one free of suffering. Not, mind you, being in a state of positive pleasure.

>But then again, you committed a similar mistake. You claimed that he advocates absence of suffering, and that is not true. He advocates maximization of Joy. Ataraxia is not a state of absence of pleasure, it's specifically a state of perpetual joy, which is what makes him stand far apart from Buddha.
I think that 'ataraxia' can only be reached in the absence of suffering. It has nothing to do with the absence of pleasure -- merely that a state of being in positive pleasure has nothing to do with reaching ataraxia. A suffering person cannot be totally tranquil; at least that's how I read Epicurus. Thus, the path to joy is being free of suffering -- in this way, Epicurus's hedonism is a negative one. Suffering is the foe, pleasure is not necessarily the friend.

I also don't want to make it sound like Epicurus is cribbing from the Buddha. This was simply a hit philosophical problem that two heavyweights found solutions for. Siddhartha Gautama's no-self is equivalent only in that both Epicurus and Buddha are both suspicious of desire as being disruptive of living a truly good life.

Attached: 1333009865148.png (500x702, 316K)

I'm not sure if you're the same person, but I'm the guy who wrote these:
This has been quite pleasurable, if you'll forgive me abusing the word a bit more, but I have to go to sleep. It's been fun, hope the other anons here have gotten a taste of ancient philosophical shitposting. Cheers.

Attached: 1316860494457.png (900x3256, 2.64M)

Okay, you really haven't understood much of buddhism and are really taking some of the terms at face value when they're meant to be contemplated. Nibbana means being extinguished, yes, and it's an escape from samsara, yes, but the idea that it's suicide is limited. It's not death, because death is just one more stage of samsara.
Once you achieve nibbana you are blissful. No more pain remains because no more desire remains. You don't immediately bloop out of existence like a logic error. You can return to the mortal realms or ascend to the divine realms or bloop out of existence or even descend to the lower realms whenever you deem appropriate. Samyaksambuddha would not exist if nibbana caused instantaneous nonexistence. Stretching a metaphor extremely far, you get the cheat codes to reality and can spiritually noclip.
You don't reincarnate not to "escape pain" but because your soul has no reason to incarnate again, it has nothing to drag it back to the material universe of suffering, and can remain in superposition in the realm of neither existence nor nonexistence for eternity.
>Philosophical Hindu believes in Atman, the highest diety and identifies human soul with it
You're misinformed here too. The Brahman is not a deity or an entity, it is everything, and the Atman is just scattered fragments of Brahman that has forgotten it is Brahman.

youtube.com/watch?v=oCgcTxsF2P8

>This state can be reached when a person is not troubled by pain.
While this is true, it's only half-true. To Epicuros, finding joy is an active procedure: not only lack of pain, but also active formation of joy. You still are attached to things - in fact you are more attached than ever. You enjoy the bread, you appreciate it, you savor the taste. You have to actively learn to experience joy, to love your circumstances. Ataraxia really isn't a state of detachement: it's not just the absense of pain. This matter from a philosophical perspective, even if from a common-sense one it may seem to be of questionable relevance - in our daily experience "lack of pain" and "joy" may seem like basically two similar things.
But the metaphysical implications are really vast: each of their perspectives, while ending up in what seems to be the same moral code or similar behavior (both end up living exceptionally modest lives), they come from a completely opposing understandings of reality, and humanity - and these further resonate in their other teachings.

Epicuros does not reject need and want. He understands need for joy: he just advocates that you should only need and want what you can reliably have in the first place, and nothing more.

Buddha rejects need and want entirely. He rejects value of life, of existence itself. He advocates that you should not mind being hungry to begin with. You should not care if you eat either (that is the basis of the famous anecdote about him getting kicked out of the monastery for eating a bowl of rice). Epicuros says you should enjoy every meal, even the most simple one. It's again an active procedure: it's not enough to avoid hunger, you need to take another step: you should find JOY in the act of eating. I really think that is an important distinction.

>It's not death, because death is just one more stage of samsara.
Semantics. Yes, it's not just one physical death, because physical death means nothing in a philosophy of reincarnation. It's an absolute death. The process of Nirvana is more akin to our western, secularist understanding of death their idea of physical death is. Nirvana is the act upon which you dissolve and NEVER come back. The definitive end.

Again, all the bullshit about divine realms, the idea that you can move up and down at your will: all later date pollution of the philosophy by both Hindu elements and just re-interpretation of the philosophy into a religion more accessible to wider audiences, but in direct contradiction to the earliest teachings. Hell, you could start arguing that karma is good with that level of detailed understanding while you are at it.

>You're misinformed here too.
I'm not. I'm doing basic simplifications for the sake of fitting into a post lenght, just like you just did.

withaterriblefate.com/2018/03/14/the-real-architect-of-xenoblade-chronicles-2-is-plato/

>Again, all the bullshit about divine realms, the idea that you can move up and down at your will: all later date pollution of the philosophy by both Hindu elements and just re-interpretation of the philosophy into a religion more accessible to wider audiences, but in direct contradiction to the earliest teachings.
Well I don't know who told you this but this comes directly from the oldest fucking texts that Buddhism even has, the Pāli Canon. All the rupa jhanas, the four dhyanas, the four arupas, and Nirodha-Samapatti. This is literally as old as it gets. Nirodha Samapatti is closer to what you are suggesting, the complete termination of existence, and it is a domain that only the Buddha has reached (and, by your measure, "later date pollution" for other buddhas), but Nirodha Samapatti is not Nibbana because within Nirodha Samapatti there is no consciousness but in Nibbana consciousness can be stopped and started freely.

>waifu bait weebshit
>philosophy
Fuck off

(me)
I feel I should extend this, in that achieving Nirodha Samapatti IS a form of enlightnment, but it makes you an Arhat, not a Buddha.
If you reach it it means you chose "FUCK THIS, I'M OUT, GOODBYE FOREVER" instead of the path of loving everything and eternal bliss, because you didn't try to teach anyone else and help them escape too.
Buddhism does not specifically say this is the wrong choice, because not everyone has what it takes to teach, and even Buddha wasn't certain if he should have taught until Brahma gave him a chat.

Stricto sensu, it's neutral. There can be good & low quality art!

legacy of kain

Attached: Legacy of Kain - Soul Reaver7.jpg (611x480, 59K)

Pali Canon in it's current form is literally completely 500 years after Buddha's death. The oldest texts we have are about 100 years after his demise. They are present (at least some of them) in Pali, where they sit along side many texts formated literally many centuries after Gautama's death, AS PART OF A PROCESS TO TRANSFORM HIS TEACHINGS INTO AN INSTITUTIONALIZED RELIGION AND TO BE RECONCILED WITH EXISTING HINDU TEACHINGS.

How the fuck fuck do you not know that.
No go read Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
and Dhammapada and tell me how older buddhist texts think of those who attained Nirvana can move up and down through "divine realms" if the EXPLICITLY define Nirvana as Anatta and in oppsition to Anicca: literally as the only state of ABSOLUTE PERMANCE in opposition to any form of change or flux.
See how the claim that you can fly around in happy little heavenly gardens kinda goes around the notion that all existence is flux, and Nirvana is the search for Anatta - a state of absolute stasis, that also translates literally into "NOT BEING"?

God you really do not have a clue what you are saying. This is precisely when westerners try to study Buddhism in hope to validate their happily little dreams of things getting better. It's a placation buddhism, the same shit they made up to sell to masses because well... most people don't like pesimistic stories.

>Stricto sensu, it's neutral. There can be good & low quality art!
No, it really fucking isn't. "Low art" is an intentional oxymoron: it means "it tries to be art, but fails".

Not that user, but what does art mean to you?

The same thing it actually means to virtually all people, whenever they are aware of it or not.

It means an object (or an action, or even a technique) that considered uniquely valuable relative to other entities of it's kind by some form of relevant local consensus or criteria.
Traditionally, it has meant "item / behavior of unusual mastery, expertise, or talent", because... well, 99% of our history, that was the by-far-most relevant criterium of value. As our society became more complex and means of production shifted around, we begin to create more complex and plural notions of value.

But ultimately, "art" is nothing more than a call sign for "hey, this thing is considered to be super special and you should probably pay more attention to it than most other things that are like it".
That is how art works, and has always worked. Even people who deny this actually still believe in it: they just happen to have incredibly screwed up notions of value and happen to be very dishonest with themselves for all kinds of reasons.

But even people who argue for different definitions of art ACTUALLY do it precisely because they adhere to this use, they just want to their particular notion of value above others.

Hence, people who argue art is "any expression" just really say "hey, I think INDIVIDUALISM is the highest value", people who deny art to have any value or defining features just really say "Hey, nihilism is the highest value", and so on and so forth.

>contend that Epicurus thought ataraxia, the joyful state reachable through the absence of pain (which is to say, free of unfulfilled desire), is not related to what any hedonist/utilitarian talks about when they discuss living in a state of pleasure. For Epicurus, the best state of living is a joyful one -- one free of suffering. Not, mind you, being in a state of positive pleasure.
Laughably wrong.
>Epicuros
This guy's so dumb he can't even spell Epicurus's name right!
Look at these idiots! Arguing about Buddhism HAHAHAHAHHA

Anything older than the Pali Canon only exists in fragmentary form and has to be welded together to make any consistent image at all. Some of it's nonsense.
>tell me how older buddhist texts think of those who attained Nirvana can move up and down through "divine realms" if the EXPLICITLY define Nirvana as Anatta and in oppsition to Anicca: literally as the only state of ABSOLUTE PERMANCE in opposition to any form of change or flux.
This matches perfectly to Nirodha Samapatti. Call it one of those filled-in breaks from incomplete texts if you want.
>See how the claim that you can fly around in happy little heavenly gardens kinda goes around the notion that all existence is flux, and Nirvana is the search for Anatta - a state of absolute stasis, that also translates literally into "NOT BEING"?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The "gods" and their "divine realms" come into being, float around temporarily, and dissipate like bubbles in the ocean. It's not a worthwhile activity to hang around in the heavenly realms. The general gist for enlightened beings is to hang out in the material to teach the way to others and then quit existing.
Just because you could hypothetically exist again (by willing yourself to do so from a point of nonexistence where you don't even think, which would be difficult and makes no real sense whatsoever, but hey, probability calls this state "almost never" and legally differentiates it from "never") doesn't mean you ever would. Like.. the entire point is that you don't want to. You don't have desires. So you're probably not going to. Because who the fuck does things they don't want to?

Rain World

Attached: UNQ - Plate2.png (332x332, 57K)

The user you replied to : a toddler drawing a house & stick figures as the family is art. Le serment des horaces from Jacques Louis David is art. They clearly aren't on the same level... But both are art.
Art is a polysemic term (like most things that start debates), yet its first meaning is neutral (means of communication through pictures/music/poems/etc).

You might be confused because you only think about the meaning it gets in a sentence like "wow, this is art!"

Tl;dr : there's good & bad art. There are good drawings of an apple, there are bad drawings of an apple (both tried To show an apple, and one doesn't evoke the idea of an apple as good as the other one).

Dark Souls and MGS2.

>This guy's so dumb he can't even spell Epicurus's name right!
Ἐπίkουρος (Epíkouros) is the actually the proper spelling name, that should be normal to anyone who reads the texts in greek, rather than learning from shitty american textooks that only incorrectly refer to incorrect Latin textbooks.

You guys are the bunch of pretentious faggots

>The user you replied to : a toddler drawing a house & stick figures as the family is art.
No.
It isn't.
Unless you can define a reasonable and relevant theory or social group that makes a solid point why that work should be treated as such, it isn't art.

>Art is a polysemic term (like most things that start debates), yet its first meaning is neutral (means of communication through pictures/music/poems/etc).
You got that... where? The original meaning of the word "art" which originates in medieval French is actually "CRAFT". As in "skillful execution", "(your) business", "what you are good at". Originating probably in PIE's "aerti" - "to assemble", "to make something work".
It's in that meaning - mastery, craft, skilfulness we still still use it today in such contexts as "martial arts" or "the art of war". And here is the thing: what is the difference between "martial art" and just plain old "brawling", huh?

You god damn, uneducated cretin. Art means mastery, work that is above what most people do, something notable among other similar things. Through that meaning it gradually became an institution that recognizes unique merit, and that is how we gained in our modern vocabulary.

People who deny this - again - do it because they desire to push their PARTICULAR VIEWS OF PARTICULAR VALUES as universal, and abuse the term to that end. In this case, you most likely are insecure as living fuck and can't STAND the notion of value being strongly defined, which is why you desperately try to divorce it from art (even if that means clearly denying history and removing any utility that the word has): relativism being the sole value you can actually stand, thus demanding that the notion of art reflects precisely that value and no other.

So you are once again just proving me wrong, unwittingly.

Attached: Diablo_Coverart.png (256x255, 93K)

At first glance I thought this thread was about poly

Then we shall bring it down to a level in which you are more comfortable.

What's your favourite button to press when playing a video game? Mine is X.

I have no mouth and I must scream
Planescape Torment
Nier Automata
Silent HIll 2

diablo I, quake 3, are like the purist masterpieces and most obvious. I agree with other posters on all games being art of varying quality.

Attached: 5780095-3195375298-a4613.jpg (800x600, 254K)

> The original meaning of the word "art" which originates in medieval French is actually "CRAFT". As in "skillful execution", "(your) business", "what you are good at"
It literally just means "thing you did", faggot. It's closer to "method" or "process" than ""skillful execution"" or ""what you are good at"".
Pull your head out your ass.

Well, in general, path of exile has some good points here and there.

>It literally just means "thing you did", faggot. It's closer to "method" or "process" than ""skillful execution"" or ""what you are good at"".
Actually, the thing you do well. Process and method are fairly related, yes. Because both mean something VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT than "Action". They imply technique, something that does not come naturally, something that requires either knowledge, or other form of extra effort, experience.
And those, my retarded fucking friend, are VALUABLE THINGS. Craftsman is defined by doing his job better than other people would do. He is a specialist, someone who mastered a skill that most others do not possess. That is the fucking point here. Anyone can make a table, but tables done by people who do not possess special skills are going to SUCK. That is why only those made by the selected few are works of craft. The skill or technique makes them unique.

Artisans are people who are good at what they do. Not every person doing something is an artisan in that production. How is this not going through your head?

>Pull your head out your ass.
I just proved you completely wrong in EVERY FUCKING DIMENSION so you really aren't in the position to belch shit like that, you faggot. You genuinely did not know that the original meaning of the word "art" is "craft" or "mastery", you GENUINELY THOUGHT it's "painting or sculpting" specifically.

I am not the one who should pull his head out of his ass, cretin. You were talking out of your ass from the very beggining of this conversation. Did not know most basic etymology or history, not to speak about basic logic and philosophy behind it.

So you're saying all non-indie games are art.

Half the garbage Damien Hirst makes begs to differ. Sure it's art, but that's a meaningless term, and most art is garbage same as anything that obeys Sturgeon's law.

That depends on what value-criteria we consider relevant, actually.

No, it really does not. Again: art having UNIVERSAL FUNCTION OF DENOTING VALUE is not the same as "VALUES BEING UNIVERSAL".
It's not a meaningless term, you are just a moron who is using it wrong.

Super Mario Bros 2

>The philosophical shit was mostly completely pointless and shallow.
Huh?

I don't think I've ever seen more bullshit before. perhaps you shit on the game because it's too hard, or the fact that you can wrap your big head around the complexity of the story.

But the 'philosophical shit' was in no way shallow or pointless.

Attached: 1541223747989.png (851x703, 934K)

Persona 1, 2, and 5

This

>I don't think I've ever seen more bullshit before. perhaps you shit on the game because it's too hard, or the fact that you can wrap your big head around the complexity of the story.
Hard?
Again: I liked Talos Principle. Among other reasons, I liked it because it felt like it's on an easier side when it comes to puzzles. I did get stuck like twice, on puzzles that honestly pretty much everyone complained about due to the fact that the solution was dependent on things the game did not actually teach you, but those were isolated cases. I even collected most of the stars.

And no, the story wasn't complex, and the philosophy was extremely basic stuff. Especially compared to Soma it was pretty shallow.
I did actually genuinely like the story - again, because the human aspect of it was really interesting and had a beautiful tone to it.

But the philosophy was most BASIC theories of consciousness that were in no way actually interestingly expanded upon, and a fuckton of mythological tripe that did not expand on the philosophy either.

I don't think that is a FAULT of the game, I don't think every game has to have a powerful and novel philosophical message and angle to it, and I think the actual story was actually interesting enough. And I can see how to someone who NEVER studied philosophy of mind and consciousness it may have been a good an interesting basic introduction: but you could argue that Bastion is profound analysis of philosophy of free will under the same expectation.

You're right, art is whatever I like/appreciate and if I don't like it then it isn't. I don't get why that's so hard to grasp.

I have to say that you've spent this entire thread projecting really hard, though? Why so assblasted?

>You're right, art is whatever I like/appreciate and if I don't like it then it isn't. I don't get why that's so hard to grasp.
Absolutely missing the fucking point. But then again, I assume expecting you to have the faintest idea of how VALUES work is like expecting you to have any idea how LANGUAGE works: it's just naive of me. It's not like those things have any relevant impact on our life, anyway, right?

The real question is: if you are this fucking dumb and clueless, why do you pester other people by pretending that your opinions matter? Are you insane? What fucking gave you the insane arrogance to even fucking talk about this subject? Did you parents not teach you not to talk about shit you clearly can't understand?

This is my first reply to you, actually. You're basically saying that things like gnostic atheists are dishonest cowards and that real people are either athiest athiests or people that believe in religion and that people shouldn't doubt things.

I have values and I think they're right, or else I wouldn't believe in them. Why are you so upset about this?

>You're basically saying that things like gnostic atheists are dishonest cowards and that real people are either athiest athiests or people that believe in religion and that people shouldn't doubt things.
What the fuck are you even droning about? Atheists? WTF?! Are you high?

>I have values and I think they're right, or else I wouldn't believe in them. Why are you so upset about this?
Because I'm dealing with retards that clearly demand to speak despite knowing that they can't ever say anything relevant or meaningful. That is frustrating as hell.
Now your time: WHY THE FUCK are you even joining this conversation about things that you KNOW to fly over your head?

Everything is art, art is nothing special.

But I believe in objective morality too, why are you fighting me?

My opinion regarding art: if it takes a major amount of skill to achieve it, it's art. If it doesn't (e.g. throwing buckets of paint into a canvas) then it is not art.

When it comes to videogames, I don't necessarily think about "how good the gameplay is", but "how good the overall game is".

- Thief: The Dark Project
- Deus Ex
- Fallout
- Dark Souls
- Vagrant Story

would be my picks.

r/thathappened

I am truly lost for fucking words here.

Look, kid:
You are dumb.
You should not impose yourself in conversations on this subject. You are literally belching nonsense. It's embarrassing for you, frurstrating for everyone else. Stick to talking games, or cereal or something that is more comfortable to you. Trust me, it will be better for everyone.

To add to my list of games: none of them are philosophical games. At least I wouldn't call Deus Ex philosophical, it's a game that parodies conspiracy theories and thus touches on elements regarding them. Sure, many are/came true, but the game never tries to be OH I'M SO SMART like Kojima's Metal Gear series is (which is why I can't never think of his games as art; they are a wannabe director's idea of what art should be).

Same with Planescape: Torment. It tries to be philosophical. It fails miserably. Same with pretty much any philosophical game out there.

If you don't like objective reality or the idea that people aren't sure of themselves and believe in a subjective reality (no objectivity and value judgements), then what do you like?

People like you get upset when you don't command or control the conversation or the narrative, but that's not something you can do every waking moment when trying to talk to people. Try to relax a bit.

Only correct answer

Planescape Torment

Just talk to the factions

Sid Meier's™ Alpha Centauri gets better the more you know (and care) about philosophy.

You literally do not know what any of the words you are using mean. I honestly don't even know where to begin with you.
Objectivity does not mean what you think it means. You clearly don't even BEGIN TO FANTOM the notion of normativity and how that plays a role - in values, in languages and meanings, in ethics. These are absolutely FUNDAMENTAL things to understand, and you can't even begin discussing them without properly grasping them.
Again: talk about something you DO know a little about. There is something you do know something about, right? At least one area of human activity that you know at least little more than most? Focus on that. Or stray away from discussions and instead educate yourself. Carve yourself a niche.
But don't assume you can talk about shit without investing even the basic minimum effort to understand it.

nigga knows what's up

The only thing I don't get here is why you got bent out of shape when I agreed that things can have value and that being art is a value judgement. If you hate it when people say that art is not a value judgement and I say art is a value judgement, what's the problem?

But the nature of the argument is entirely different. The problem is that value systems differ between groups. Art is universal in that there is always a value assessment at the core, BUT the nature of the values themselves is specific to whatever social context you take into consideration. Different societies have different values. ALL however project their specific value systems into work and produce: all have art, all identify art through value judgement, but their values may be even entirely contradictory at times.
And furthermore, objectivity plays NO ROLE IN ANY OF THIS PROCESS. It's a completely unrelated notion. And I still haven't figure out what the fuck are you raving on about with the atheist bullshit.

The problem is that you are still too poorly informed on the subject, thus you still don't understand what the fuck am I saying. Which results in you jumping to conclusions that are nonsensical, often even straight up completely unrelated.

KOTOR 1 & 2 wins easily in the category of making you philosophically devastated after playing

The way I saw KOTOR 1 made me genuinely and truly turn to the dark side and fully disagree with the good guys

>tfw bioware will never be good again

Attached: Kotorbox.jpg (220x305, 27K)

Bitch, you be tripping. Chill.

Oh, that's what this is about. I thought you were one of those "art is objective" fags that somehow can't define things objectively and clearly (what makes good art?). Since you indicated that you hate people who don't make value judgements and "stand by their opinions", I assumed that you were also one of those people who ran around complaining about subjectivity. That's what the whole athiest agnostic was about. Posters like that made /his/ into a wasteland for months.

The only objective thing I've ever seen was systems of logic, so people injecting that into art is really damn strange to me. Because defining objectively good art requires a base set of truths that are definitely right, you wouldn't be able to define them. But every time I try to coax someone like that into defining them, they always dodge.

Thank you for proving my point.

"Art is objective" or "value is objective" are both literally nonsensical statements. Values can't be objective BY DEFINITION, just like meanings can't be.
That however, does not mean they are subjective either. Which is what most people get wrong. Most people assume that there is a simple objective / subjective dichotomy (or at best, an interval) that is sufficient to describe and understand epistemology of most daily problems. They are wrong, and it is in fact one of the dumbest misconceptions of western non-academic public. Debates about values (and meanings) - which necessarily include debates about art - actually do not have much to do with either objectivity or subjectivity to begin with. Those categories are largely meaningless or useless in this context.

How is an opinion not subjective?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

Most games of Metal gear, Armored core, Ace combat, even dark souls have some philosophy in either implicit and explicit form and but also have quite a bit sophistry.
Games by Japanese devs definitely atleast wish to say something meaningful.

>zero escape 4

Opinions =/= judgments, you idiot. Again and again and again we run into you not knowing most fundamental stuff.
Also, fucking on-line dictionaries as arguments. How old are you, really?

Videogames are a medium, a tool to deliver a message like movies, a painting, a book.
If this message is meaningful and well done, than it's a good piece of media, if not, it is not.

The only reason that people call something "art" is because to the common man, art means something beautiful.
But art doesn't necessairily mean that. Art is something that has been crafted by someone, nothing more than that.

The worst videogame ever created is still a piece of art, although a shitty videogame.

People that use "art" as a positive term never grew past the renaissance and still think that only something that they personally think is pretty deserves to be called that.
Art is objective, quality is subjective.

Attached: 220px-Xenogears_box.jpg (220x206, 16K)

Attached: Soma-walkthrough-site-omicron5.jpg (1920x1080, 284K)

Mario Party.

What's the video game version of this?

Attached: chrysippus.jpg (229x343, 35K)

>People that use "art" as a positive term never grew past the renaissance
It's funny how the po-mo fed cretins who are a result of a failed intellectual experiment from the 30-50's of last century specifically in Western Europe, have the insane arrogance to claim everything up to fucking renaissance agrees with them.
No, you arrogant cocksucking cretins. YOU are an anomaly, a result of a society-wide failure of one silly experiment. The entirety of history, everything that isn't ONE (and only one of many) now dead philosophical school of one region that survived barely 50 years, is fucking laughing at you.
Especially if you conclude with something as insanely, marvelously stupid as this:
>Art is objective, quality is subjective.
Please, PLEASE tell me what are the physical qualities of "art". What is it chemical composition or other physiological and physical properties that I can verify though any independent observer and quantify.
Like the rest of you faggots, you literally use words you do not know the meaning of.

>game makes you ponder if a robot/living corpse/a program with a mind of a human can be still considered human
>is completely ruined by the fact that the MC is a total moron
what a waste

Objective means something that can't be interpreted by anyone in a different way.
I can't argue wether a videogame has been crafted or not, if it exists someone must have created it.

Not everything you dislike is post-modern, you think Dadaism gave a shit about being "art"?
And that couldn't be further from postmodernism.
The word you are looking for is "Avant-Garde"

Sounds like you are the one who doesn't know what the words you are using mean.

>Objective means something that can't be interpreted by anyone in a different way.
First of all, no.
Second of all, even if this was a correct definition, and it isn't, then art CLEARLY ISN'T OBJECTIVE, otherwise we would not be having this very discussion, you dipshit.
Art is a word. It's a semantic concept: it is a matter of MEANING. If you had BASIC fucking education, you'd know that meanings are ARBITRARY, NOT FUCKING OBJECTIVE. BY. DEFINITION.
Fuck you talk about people stuck in renaissance and you literally do not know about the semiotic turn? The fuck is wrong with you you cock-sucking cripple?

>Not everything you dislike is post-modern, you think Dadaism gave a shit about being "art"?
Postmodern became the theoretical framework for rejection axiomatic dimension from art. It has been the ONLY philosophical notion in any relevant time-frame to do that as well. So yes. What you are spouting is brain-dead lay-men and pretty poor parroting of postmodernism.

>The word you are looking for is "Avant-Garde"
Nope. Another subject you know nothing about. You seem to be mistaking Avant-Garde with L'art Pour L'artism, which was a joke that nobody took seriously until - again - postmodernism emerged to retroactively "validate" it. And even L'art-pour-l'artism is being misunderstood and misreprestended when it was presented by postmodern art theory as a denial of value as a constitutional element of art. Even Dada mostly did not do that. Duchamp did, but then again DUCHAMP WAS A FRAUD AND A CRIMINAL, so maybe we should not treat him as a valid representation of the whole era.

I don't know man, my dictionary seems pretty certain that objective means what he said, I'm calling bullshit.

Your dictionary? Care to fucking explain what gives the dictionary any authority or weight?

It being the dictionary, what gives you more authority, anonymous voice screaming on my screen?

>It being the dictionary, what gives you more authority, anonymous voice screaming on my screen?
Yeah, this kinda sums up the problem. You literally don't even know HOW TO USE A DICTIONARY and yet you think you have more authority that people that actually obviously have more complex understanding of the problem than you do.
How?
How are you alive being this dumb? And it's not just stupidity, it's amazing arrogance on top of that. Jesus. Have you ever fucking studied anything releated to these subjects? Do you actually know what are dictionaries for?

God you people are fucking. Disgusting. This isn't just ordinary clueless pleb: you are clueless pleb that actually thinks itself smarter than anyone. It's fucking pathetic.

You keep carrying the discussion towards post-modernism, I am not even trying to defend it.

I get that you dislike it, it's okay, we all have opinions.You don't need to shout or swear, it's fine.

I never head about this "Duchamp was a criminal" thing, care to explain?

>muh concept of evullll

That bust looks exactly like Orson Welles

Not the same person and you are avoiding my question. You are just calling me names and I'll have you know I know a swear or two myself.
I'll even call you the C word if you keep pushing me sir, I fear no man.

>being this mad

Attached: 1549812776410.jpg (750x728, 270K)

>Studying art or languages

Nice useless degrees you got there, thank god for mommy's tendies supply.

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 79K)

>I get that you dislike it, it's okay, we all have opinions.You don't need to shout or swear, it's fine.
It's not that I dislike it, it's that I am right.

>I never head about this "Duchamp was a criminal" thing, care to explain?
Duchamps statement that the Fountain was displayed at the exhibition of Society of Independent Artists, and the pictures he showed off - his literally SOLE claim to fame - were fraudulent. In fact, the Exibition refused to display it simply stating that they are an art gallery, not a fucking santitation shop. Duchamp instead had his friend set up a stage that mimicked the gallery and take picture of the object there, which he proved as evidence to coerce other galleries to display it.
Furthermore, his work and it's interpretation has been switched around by him several times, proving ABSOLUTE intellectual dishonesty of the bastard. He originally intended to display the object as a mockery and criticism OF FAILING STANDARDS OF ART, after he was offended when he saw the Society's claim that "any item will be displayed provided the proper fees are paid".
His attempt to mock the item failed as it turned out they actually DID have standards, so he created the FRAUDULEND pictures (already compromising his original point).
However, the public completely misunderstood it again, assuming that his work is not a criticism, but rather a a clever insight and contribution to theory of art (the OPPOSITE of what he intended to convey). And the cunt was actually so fucking opportunistic that he decided to roll with it, because that would make him more money.

And to make matters worse, the idea wasn't even his. It was most likely proposed by one of his female friends who Duchamp never agreed to disclose.

We are talking about a person who also straight up stated:
"Art is a mistake. Art should never exist. We should do with art what we did with religion and completely remove it from our society".

Xenoblade Chronicles X did it better faggot.

Is question another concept that you don't understand?
You did not pose any question. I did ask several, none of which YOU replied to, including what fucking dictionary are you talking about (not all dictionaries are equal, you spaz) and what makes you think gives it it's authority.

I'm insulting you because you are worth insulting.

Opinions =/= judgments, you idiot.

Not according to to Merriam Webster or the Oxford Dictionary.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/judgement
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

>you idiot
You just took the words out of my mouth lmao.

okay Yea Forums
what's the bet philosophy to live by if I want to get a gf?

>we run into you not knowing most fundamental stuff.
>Posts easily refuted bullshit

Never change Yea Forums

get out
no seriously

Subscribe to PewDiePie

Yeah okay I get the jist, I don't think that posting what dictionary I got it from will change anything but anyway I used Merriam Webster, it said "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

Now, how is this dictionary wrong and your definition right? See? I understand what a question is. Do you understand how to answer and provide proof?
Show me the dictionary that you like and what it says.

Aristotle best boi

Literally just b urself and don't be cunt
If you are a cunt then don't b urself, because people don't like cunts.

Worked for me cause I'm not a cunt

what's goin on here

Attached: question_22.png (350x263, 103K)

>454799312
>In philosophy
>Professor asks me about the concept of evil
>Put on the spot, start panicking but remember a certain quote from Witcher 3
>"Why do pricks go in cunts?"
>Professor looks stunned, class gives me a round of applause

>philosophy
Hakuna Matata~

This might shock you, but those dictionaries have no prescriptive power, or relevance. Also, out of the four definitions they provide, only one actually agrees.
"Judgement" from an epistemologic perspective is something completely different from opinion. It's a product of arbitration, a social process that is among other VITAL component of semiosis. All these words you never heard - does it not hit you that you really may be talking about something you should probably actually study first? How do you continue to argue when you see people talking about fields and concepts you NEVER HEARD OF, and still maintain the confidence that you are right?
It does not even bother you that the dictionary you use as "proof" has FOUR WIDELY DIFFERING DEFINITIONS?!
Did that not hit you? Did you not even question how is it possible for a dictionary to provide multiple definitions for the same word? And that it may tell you something about the actual use and misuse of them?

You.
Are.
BRAINDEAD. Which would be fine if you just did as you are told and not fucking pollute real human's discussion with your presence.

snes/genesis lion king then?

This whole post. Art is simply a projection of the imagination into reality. It can be didactic, purposeless, masterfully crafted, shat out, formulaic, or even a product of stream of consciousness. Whatever the way you define it, it's still art. It's very broad and has been the subject of debate for nearly all of mankind's existence. We are definitely wasting time attempting to define art itself rather than what is considered a product of the word.

This might shock you, but you have no prescriptive power, or relevance. There wasn't a single argument in any post you've made this whole thread. All you've done is say "this is the wrong definition and if you don't use it you're retarded"

>Now, how is this dictionary wrong and your definition right?
First of all, and this really boggles my mind: you ALSO did not notice the dictionary that you provided gives multiple different, often very varying definitions?
Second of all: how do you achieve that? What constitutes something as independend of feelings, or biases. How is (as one of the definition states) "objective" a "phenomenon" yet simultaneously indepenedent of mind? That alone is a contradictive definition.

All of this is because these definitions are shit, because they have NEVER been intended to taken seriously. They are orientational at absolute best, because there is NO FUCKING WAY you can fit understanding of something as complex as one of the three founding notions of modern epistemology into an on-line dictionary.
It's there to help absolutely clueless people who never heard the word in their LIFE to get the most general, if most unreliable and imprecise idea of how people most commonly use the word.

That is how dictionaries work. They are not even descriptive, they are very losely approximative. The more specific a dictionary you have, the more it can afford to function descriptively (in Oxford philosophical dictionary, the entry on "objectivity has about eight pages, which is still too little to be taken as an academic source.
Stanford does not even have A entry on "objectivity" because they know too well it's a too complex subject, so they divide it between about eight different entries, including one on objectivity in relation to science, which alone has about 70 pages at minimum.
I've read it, by the way. Which is why I fucking laugh at you morons thinking you know what you are talking about.

>DUCHAMP WAS A FRAUD AND A CRIMINAL

Tell me more, user

>but you have no prescriptive power, or relevance.
I actually very technically do. Now tell me this: YOU KNOW that you are out of your water here. You KNOW that these are things that are actually largely completely alien to you. You know that anyone with basic college education already knows much more than you do.
Yet somehow, your base assumption when faced with someone who clearly has at least some barings on the field (notice all the words I use that you don't really know where to put), you still automatically assume they know less than you.

That, my friend, is a mental illness. Instead of being grateful somebody is actually even gracefully offering his time and knowledge to you, you screeth and seethe. And you still end up thinking you know better despite KNOWING YOU KNOW NOTHING.
That is mental illness.

>Reading 70+ pages just to feel superior to random people on a mongolian tapestry-weaving imageboard about bing bing wahoos

Attached: 1551565391656.jpg (1024x768, 134K)

A C E C O M B A T
Z
E
R
O

Attached: 1552541411871m.jpg (459x1024, 77K)

Coming from CS background I can try to roughly guess what model you have in mind when talking about meaning of word art:
>Natural language, beyond syntax, has semantics, akin to denotational semantics but more "fuzzy", for example
>These denotations correspond in some way to sequences of sensations a mind experiences
>The process through which these denotational concepts, mind and language interact is irrelevant for now
>Among denotational concepts there is a concept of valuation, which is roughly a function or relation from "concepts" (whatever that denotational type is) to "values"
>"art" can be expressed as a functor on "concepts" and valuations, applying a given valuation to a concept to somehow quantify artistic merit
Do correct me where I'm wrong.

user, you're laughing at a person for educating themselves. This says more about you than it does them, don't be this way.

see He also actually never created anything else note-worthy beyond the urial, denounced art for fiteen years, and then when he ran out of money, he decided to literally and explicitly dedicate the rest of his life to destroying the notion of art.

Yeah that's true, you're right.

I was trying to bait him because he's funny but I really shoulnd't mock people for studying.
I'll go back to studying my stuff, this seething user going full autismo about definitions has been a fun diversion.
I assume I just find it funny cause I've never seen someone so mad about words, and I study law.

Attached: 255.jpg (344x477, 50K)

>spends all day talking about how language is a fixed thing and that words only have one definition
>doesn't realize that human language is a context sensitive grammar
You clearly haven't read any of Saussure's works or anything about linguistics at all.

What a fucking big league chew piece of shit. I'm really happy it all backfired for him so spectacularly in the end.

>These denotations correspond in some way to sequences of sensations a mind experiences
Actually, this is where I divorce from the path you laid out. I don't believe mind experiences are the best thing to focus.
To me, what matters more is behavioral patterns that correspond to use of semantics. I'm less interested in what we think of art, because that is such a fucking pandora's box of problems. I'm interested in what we DO with objects we call art. What are the prevalent behavioral strategies. Is there any actual specific pattern of behavior that is universal to all or at least significant majority of instances when we operate with objects that we denote as such.
Veneration or prioritization are the things we do with art. We pay more money for things labeled as such. In fact we pay just for the priviledge to see them. We treat artists differently from other occupation, either with more respect, or greater expectations from their work. We discuss it differently, we establish unique discourses around them, we pay specific types of attention to them.

So what you are saying is I think correct, but it's not the path that led me to this conclusion, nor the one I'd use as a main argument. It's not wrong, but I do think arguing with "mind experiences" is always exceptionally iffy.

Fuck, I meant Chomsky, but you really should give Course in General Linguistics a look too

Literally never said any single thing you claim I said. And I know Saussure pretty much by heart at this point.

Did it? I mean I know he has been a miserable sod at the end of his life, but as far as I know, the only thing he suffered from was horrible conscience and angst derived from the fact that he knew what a fraud he was.
He did make it to a post of fucking curator of Guggenheim's museum in New York for a while. They literally employed a man who explicitly despised art in all forms and shapes as a curator and consultant for one of the most prestigeous museums in the world.

>all this for not capitalizing a word
Why do normalfag weebs always get so easily buttmad?

Try reading your posts, then.

The irony of it all makes me happy. Someone who wanted to destroy art -somethjng he despised, ended up contributing and profiting from it for further discussion and progression towards new mediums. Him being unhappy while he does it just makes it even sweeter.

Chomsky actually does not give a flying fuck about semiotics.
And Course in General Linguistics is pretty much my main fucking source of arguments in this thread, I've already referred to it several times. Arbitration of symbols is an absolutely vital piece of information for this entire discussion, it's the root of the argument that neither subjectivity, nor objectivity are sufficient tools for understanding meanings. It's what I meant when I said that JUDGEMENT (as a part of meaning-establishment, the product of ARBITRATION) is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from opinion.

Again, I have no fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Where did I ever say that meanings are fixed and never change? Quote that to me, because I'm reading through my posts and I can't find anything even remotely similar to that claim. Also this