4 ms·
Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is
by hguant 10y ago
Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good. Politics was the art of governing men, Ethics was the art of ruling oneself. These things involved skill - the skill you allude to the troll possessing, the power to weave webs of words and manipulate people - but also involved something more - an understanding that the purpose of the art was to further a good in some way. When "Aristotle" says there's not art in the troll's activities, he means they do not point to the good, and they will in fact do harm.
PS apologies if this isn't well reasoned, I just got off a plane and am a bit jet lagged.
- Kurtz79 10y agoIn general, "art" had a different meaning in past times compared to today. It was the subject of this very interesting excerpt by Knuth, recently posted by pg. http://www.paulgraham.com/knuth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/knuth.html
- feedjoelpie 10y agoWould you consider, as I would, the Yes Men's activities as both trolling and more or less good? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
- igravious 10y agoRest assured, the jet lag appears not to have blunted the art of your reasoning ;)
- sspiff 10y agoRegardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good. Labster himself describes the use of trolling in tricking the reluctant apprentice into learning, or using it to sow strife to further policy making and bring about social change. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, but I could certainly consider some of those things to be good some of the time. There is a difference in abusing other people online for entertainment - "common trolling" as labster describes it - and the "sublime trolling" in which he sees art.
- a3n 10y ago> Regardless of what definition of "art" you follow, I feel like trolling as described by labster can certainly be used for good. Or at least for effect.
- blub 10y agoThe only problem is that "sublime trolling" is something he made up. Tricking apprentices to learn, come on. He's just playing devil's advocate in a not very convincing way.
- sspiff 10y agoFrom the essay: > but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. I happen to agree with Labster's point that trolling, in rare but excellent cases, can be a thing of art, and can be used with purpose.
- iopq 10y agohttp://thecodelesscode.com/ http://thecodelesscode.com/ almost all of these koans are masters trolling students
- Karunamon 10y agoHah! This was my first thought too. The whole purpose of a koan is to, one way or another, subvert (i.e. troll) your normal thought process so some important truth can be learned.
- zevkirsh 10y agoEXAMPLE; BANKSY. IF THERE IS NO ART IN BANKSY, THEN WHY DO PEOPLE PAY MILLIONS FOR HIS ART? HAHAHAHAHAH.......... metatrolling in this comment by dual useage of the word 'art' fully intended. but what banksy does seriously is not easy. and if you don't believe me, please watch 'exit through the gift shop', a truly sublime documentary, itself fake , but SO TRUE, totally worth watching twice.