5 ms·
We don't get to see, directly, how everyone else experiences life. They might tell us, and they might do so more or less truthfully and accurately. They might s
by trebbble 4y ago
We don't get to see, directly, how everyone else experiences life. They might tell us, and they might do so more or less truthfully and accurately. They might struggle to communicate those things in a way we really understand. Meanwhile, we ourselves may struggle to explain our experiences and perspectives to others, or be ashamed or embarrassed about doing so.
One aim of literature and poetry is (or may be) to open up that inner world—to do a better job of expressing those experiences than most folks manage to, to do so across a breadth of experience we may not all encounter, and to make explicit and examinable things we may not ourselves think to examine, or may otherwise think shameful or private and ours alone.
Like, say, the experience of taking a drug and not feeling at all like you changed, but that the world did, as in the original example.
The practical utility of this in communication is evident in that the well-read tend to reach for episodes from literature or passages of poetry to relate difficult concepts concerning that inner life, and this practice is in fact helpful to readers who have a similar background, or, if you will, a common language (as in the section of my post that you quoted). This is seen extensively in philosophy, for example, and is so helpful in religion that even those that try to downplay literature or scripture (Buddhism, for example) tend to end up with extensive literatures regardless, because they are so useful for relating difficult, very personal ideas and experiences, even if they can only ever be the "finger that points" and never directly the thing-in-itself. For the individual per se it can help us understand ourselves, help us feel less alone, act as a kind of therapy to some degree, be one factor in working out what exactly we're doing here, what we want or ought to be doing, expand or exercise our empathy, and provide ethical and moral guideposts more effectively than any kind of "do this, don't do that" list of bullet points.
- zasdffaa 4y ago> and to make explicit and examinable things we may not ourselves think to examine, or may otherwise think shameful or private and ours alone That's just a claim, I could write the complete opposite and have it be just as (in)valid. > be one factor in working out what exactly we're doing here, what we want or ought to be doing, expand OK, so give some examples. Without saying "we all are doing/wanting different things". Get a mate, have a comfortable life... any advance on that? > and provide ethical and moral guideposts more effectively than any kind of "do this, don't do that" list of bullet points Another unverified claim and I don't accept any of it. Point is when artistic types are pushed into a corner they come up with this kind of handwavy stuff about being human or whatever, the point being the fuzzier the claim the harder it is to dispute. Art needs to at least try to be as rigorous as science, as it stands it so often lets itself down.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- trebbble 4y agoShrug. If you don't find it valuable, feel free to ignore it. Meanwhile most of your requests amount to "give me a liberal education in a Hackernews post" so are entirely ridiculous.
- zasdffaa 4y agoMaybe it's not valuable because it's not true? (and maybe it is because it is - but how can I tell). In science we can point to solid results like having electric lights to write literature by. What is literature worth - show me some measures. Oh, you can't. That doesn't make it worthless, I love a good book, and be happy if you said it brings much happiness to people, that alone would justify it. But you claim more, far too much. Show me that liberal arts types are on average more ethical than science types, which seems to be what you claimed, or maybe don't claim so much.
- trebbble 4y agoAgain, feel free to disagree with and ignore the entire millenia-long traditions of the liberal arts outside math and science if you like. You may be right, and all those other people wrong. It doesn't seem like you're really trying to engage with it, though, and the answers to these "show me..." type requests are—and I'm not trying to be flippant—literally "read a book" (or, rather, lots of them—guides to which might be valuable are easy to come by) which is why I'm not trying to answer them. The attempt to address them is sometimes called the "Great Conversation" and can fill whole bookcases. But if you don't think anything's missing in your life that they might help fill in, or that it's even possible there can be any truth there because only science can provide truth, then don't. That's fine too.
- zasdffaa 4y agoArguing with artistic types is frustrating because they have no rigour. For instance "because only science can provide truth" - I never said that. (edit: regarding "Maybe it's not valuable because it's not true?" I'm saying maybe literature is not as valuable as you claim, just so that doesn't get misunderstood, nothing to do with science). "But if you don't think anything's missing in your life that they might help fill in" - Sure, I love a good escapist read and literature can definitely provide for that, but beyond that, what I want is a job, a GF, drugs, sex, going out and seeing some good mates. Lessee, will literature help there? You claim, but are willing to provide no evidence. You won't even answer a simple question I asked, let me try again "Get a mate, have a comfortable life..." - what else? Life is not awash with deep questions, most stuff in life is trivial and straightforwards.