• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Any other NTs find poetry BORING??

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The worst was when we had to "interprete" poetry in school.

This is a terrible, terrible way to force poetry down on the students' throat. School fucks up pretty much everything, and you have to spend energy on not losing your interest. I'd say it's the most counter-productive institution in modern society.

I still remember those horrible poetry lessons.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
Any other NTs find poetry BORING??

Poetry is a world I am by and large excluded from experiencing in general. The reasons are fourfold: (1) I am literal-minded and think in terms of abstract concepts and syllogisms. Thus, like Kant I am unable to call visual images to mind most of the time. It follows that I could read and indeed memorize a poem, but that would be tantamount to memorizing ten license plate numbers in a parking lot and stringing them together. (2) Due to the aforementioned reason, the ideas strung together in concreto in poems require too much of a wrenching of my brain to be enjoyable--i.e. "he was feeling bad and so tricycle." (3) The first two reasons combine with a third, which is that poetry typically requires an appeal to emotion rather than reason, but my default mode of thought is reason rather than emotion. It follows that this reduces both sensual and emotional stimulation, which means that most poems do not arouse me. (4) As a general rule, poetry is unscientific and gains its legitimacy through excitation of the senses and emotion, which are counter to enlightenment thinking. Enlightened thinking, therefore, consists in placing reason and knowledge above belief and the whim of the moment, which is the business of poetry, among other things. From this it follows that the truth-seeker ought not own poetry books or hang fancy paintings in his house that merely induce him into endarkenment rather than enlightenment. (Note: the exception to this is art that appeals to the intellect rather than purely the senses and emotion. Therefore, listening to Mozart is acceptable, but listening to Wagner is not. Similarly, realist poetry and prose is acceptable from an enlightened point of view, while others are forms of endarkenment).
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am surprised to see people who still identify "truth-seeking" with obsolete thinking from the enlightenment. The convenient truth of the immortal ratio is hardly tenable, but whatever, stick to your imagined wholeness if you'd like to. It's not much better than organized religion though.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
I am surprised to see people who still identify "truth-seeking" with obsolete thinking from the enlightenment. The convenient truth of the immortal ratio is hardly tenable, but whatever, stick to your imagined wholeness if you'd like to. It's not much better than organized religion though.

Obsolete thinking? Clearly this ignoramus is unsure of what he is talking about. His claim can be falsified however on many levels with the simple application of he modus tollens of classical logic--i.e. if enlightenment thinking is obsolete, then modern political systems and references of thought that stem from enlightenment thought would also be obsolete, however this is not the case and therefore enlightenment thinking is not entirely obsolete. To name just a few cases, various 20th and 21st century thinkers and scholars have frequently drawn on the ideas in Kant's Perpetual Peace--particularly democratic peace theorists. Kenneth Waltz has drawn on many of the ideas of Hobbes in his founding of neorealism. The neoliberal revolution that occurred in the 1980s was based on the old neoclassical economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others, which Keynes had argued against in 1936 in the General Theory.

Now, if your claim was that the stock of enlightenment is down, then this would be a plausible claim. However, intellectual fashions, like stocks, rise and fall with the times. Therefore, to use the current popularity of enlightenment thinking as an argument against it is to commit an ad populum fallacy--namely, by assuming that popularity makes something valid or invalid. Fortunately, this is not the case for most things, for if it was one would be forced to conclude that 2+2=5 merely because everyone in the room feels it so or that Nazism is a valid doctrine because the Nazis were democratically elected in 1933. However, this is not the case and therefore your claim is untenable.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Poetry is a world I am by and large excluded from experiencing in general. The reasons are fourfold: (1) I am literal-minded and think in terms of abstract concepts and syllogisms. Thus, like Kant I am unable to call visual images to mind most of the time. It follows that I could read and indeed memorize a poem, but that would be tantamount to memorizing ten license plate numbers in a parking lot and stringing them together. (2) Due to the aforementioned reason, the ideas strung together in concreto in poems require too much of a wrenching of my brain to be enjoyable--i.e. "he was feeling bad and so tricycle." (3) The first two reasons combine with a third, which is that poetry typically requires an appeal to emotion rather than reason, but my default mode of thought is reason rather than emotion. It follows that this reduces both sensual and emotional stimulation, which means that most poems do not arouse me. (4) As a general rule, poetry is unscientific and gains its legitimacy through excitation of the senses and emotion, which are counter to enlightenment thinking. Enlightened thinking, therefore, consists in placing reason and knowledge above belief and the whim of the moment, which is the business of poetry, among other things. From this it follows that the truth-seeker ought not own poetry books or hang fancy paintings in his house that merely induce him into endarkenment rather than enlightenment. (Note: the exception to this is art that appeals to the intellect rather than purely the senses and emotion. Therefore, listening to Mozart is acceptable, but listening to Wagner is not. Similarly, realist poetry and prose is acceptable from an enlightened point of view, while others are forms of endarkenment).

My responses

If this is satire:

:happy0065:


If this isn't satire:

Paraphrase:
Here are the 4 reasons why I don't like poetry:
1. I cannot enjoy the imagery of poetry because my mind's eye has myopia.
2. This myopia requires me to "mentally squint," which is too much effort to be enjoyable.
3. I have an aversion to appeals to my emotion which, ironically, originates from the negative "internally based" emotions (embarrassment, shame, discomfort, etc.) I feel when something external touches me emotionally.
4. Enlightenment is something I strive for, and I (falsely) define enlightenment as not allowing oneself to excite his own senses/emotions through whims of the moment.

From these four personal reasons, I believe that anyone seeking truth ought not indulge in any of the "arts" unless they (the arts in question) are associated with intellectuals.
 

Resonance

Energizer Bunny
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
740
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
6w5
if enlightenment thinking is obsolete, then modern political systems and references of thought that stem from enlightenment thought would also be obsolete,
windows 7 is obsolete because DOS is obsolete

should have bought that monet
 

Resonance

Energizer Bunny
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
740
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
6w5
Irrelevant.
It's irrelevant that your argument is flawed?

Oh, right, you have trouble with analogies. Sorry, that was inconsiderate of me.

if enlightenment thinking is obsolete, then modern political systems and references of thought that stem from enlightenment thought would also be obsolete,
This is incorrect. Obselescence of a predecessor does not imply obselescence of the child process. In fact, that is the opposite of the truth; a child process or innovation is a prerequisite for obsolescence. The fact that there are politics and modern systems of thought which are evolved from enlightenment thinking is evidence that enlightenment thinking is obsolete.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Poetry's boring because most poets are narcissistic, self-indulging twits.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
It's irrelevant that your argument is flawed?

Oh right, you have trouble with analogies. Sorry, that was inconsiderate of me.


This is incorrect. Obselescence of a predecessor does not imply obselescence of the child process. In fact, that is the opposite of the truth; a child process or innovation is a prerequisite for obsolescence. The fact that there are politics and modern systems of thought which are evolved from enlightenment thinking is evidence that enlightenment thinking is obsolete.

First, there is no need to commit ad hominem fallacies, which can only diminish your logical and scientific integrity. Second, your analogy is a false one indeed as is your last statement, which is incorrect in a pure sense. The error in your reasoning is you are evidently looking at things from an empirical point of view. However, from a rational point of view some of the items of thought we now have necessarily require enlightenment ideas, some of which are timeless, and without which would collapse. In other words, Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is still used today and is timeless as a mathematical proof is. Therefore, to demonstrate that Ricardo's law is obsolete you would need to show that comparative advantage is no longer used or invalid, which I assure you is a futile task since it is widely used and it is based on a timeless proof. The same holds for other things, and you would ascertain the same conclusion if you drew a distinction between rational and historical knowledge. Without this distinction, your statement is tantamount to saying basic arithmetic is obsolete because we now have calculus...Thus, you have committed the fallacy of a false analogy, and tried to force it through by coupling it with an ad hominem fallacy.
 

Resonance

Energizer Bunny
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
740
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
6w5
some of which are timeless.
And some are not. Namely, the one about never appealing to your sense of aesthetics. You might as well not wear clothing except when necessary to stave off extreme temperatures, nor eat anything but bread and water. Sex? Perish the thought, lest it produce thought-offspring while you are trying very hard to think about something oh-so-important. Indulge in hygiene only when prompted by sanitary concerns.

You seem to be doing quite fine with analogies after all. Are you sure it requires as much squinting as you initially claimed?
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
First, there is no need to commit ad hominem fallacies, which can only diminish your logical and scientific integrity. Second, your analogy is a false one indeed as is your last statement, which is incorrect in a pure sense. The error in your reasoning is you are evidently looking at things from an empirical point of view. However, from a rational point of view some of the items of thought we now have necessarily require enlightenment ideas, some of which are timeless, and without which would collapse. In other words, Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is still used today and is timeless as a mathematical proof is. Therefore, to demonstrate that Ricardo's law is obsolete you would need to show that comparative advantage is no longer used or invalid, which I assure you is a futile task since it is widely used and it is based on a timeless proof. The same holds for other things, and you would ascertain the same conclusion if you drew a distinction between rational and historical knowledge. Without this distinction, your statement is tantamount to saying basic arithmetic is obsolete because we now have calculus...Thus, you have committed the fallacy of a false analogy, and tried to force it through by coupling it with an ad hominem fallacy.

Jesus, I just read some of your past posts/threads and realized that they were perhaps some of the silliest I have ever read. I say that because I indeed remember them: remember reading them; remember thinking to myself about how stupid/silly/weird they were; but I didn't remember you.

I have to ask (because frankly I am unable to tell when someone is joking or not, especially with prolonged satire and such) if you are indeed a troll or if you actually believe some of the stuff you write? Is it a joke or what?

Edit: I understand if the words I'm writing seem hostile, but they aren't meant to be. I'm seriously just asking because I'm curious. I feel like I'm reading some modern age A Modest Proposal.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
And some are not. Namely, the one about never appealing to your sense of aesthetics.

Demonstration, please.


You might as well not wear clothing except when necessary to stave off extreme temperatures, nor eat anything but bread and water. Sex? Perish the thought, lest it produce thought-offspring while you are trying very hard to think about something oh-so-important. Indulge in hygiene only when prompted by sanitary concerns.

So were enlightened thinkers like Mozart, Kant, and Smith really not enlightened in my sense of the term because they dressed decently?

You seem to be doing quite fine with analogies after all. Are you sure it requires as much squinting as you initially claimed?

The word 'analogy' never came up in my initial post; therefore, by making this point your imagination has led you beyond the limits of reason. The reason is that analogies denote an explicitly logical relation between phenomena. Therefore, there is a considerable difference between the statement, 'court is to lawyer as ring is to boxer' and the statement 'he was feeling bad and so tricycle," in that the former is logical while the latter is nonsense.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
I don't understand what you mean? What is the goal of anything... enjoyment, fulfillment, etc.

Team poetry doesn't work because there's no way of saying that the team accomplished anything as a whole, other than producing a poem. Any further valuation is entirely subjective, and that's fine. However, there's no way you can feel any sort of association with the sense of accomplishment.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Team poetry doesn't work because there's no way of saying that the team accomplished anything as a whole, other than producing a poem. Any further valuation is entirely subjective, and that's fine. However, there's no way you can feel any sort of association with the sense of accomplishment.

And what is a football team accomplishing? Is it objectively better than a poem?
 
Top