07-22-2016, 10:47 AM
aha! you caught my drunk annoyed post that i immediately regretted and deleted. touché!
however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]
You can of course critique, but you're critiques will be of limited use to the poem's author. Irregardless, I'm not sure why you're resulting to name calling to argue your point into the ground. -- fair point, well made. i must have been in a mood [one of my turns] which is why i deleted the comment. i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.
Actually, I got a PH.D. in quantum mechanics, so.... Why would you bother spouting off anything at all on a subject you know almost nothing about? Or, if you did, would it help the quantum mechanist in any measurable way? --well, you must be american, because i've never heard of someone having a phd in quantum mechanics ["If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."]. regardless, yes, you make a good point. however, i think it is based on my poorly worded argument. what i think i was trying to say [if i remember correctly] not understanding something semantically doesn't preclude you from critiquing it. there are other elements to be considered. and with regards to the quantum argument, saying "i don't get it" as a criticism benefits no one, and the meaning of the thing one is looking at doesn't necessarily relate to one's understanding of it -- i must admit, though, i am not entirely sure why i made this statement in the first place, so that's all a bit ad hoc :/
No. No. no. no. no. no. You are hung up on the idea that the "not understanding" the poem or not getting any meaning from the poem is solely caused by the lack of attention the author gave to the work. That is not what I have been saying, but you've been to busy pressing the reply button mocking me to stop and think. Not being able to deriving meaning from the poem could just be a case of you being a dumb ignorant morane. Still, I think that that demishes your ability to enjoy the peice and your ability to deliver effective critique. People have always prefer to understand things, that is why God exists. --again point taken [yeah yeah, i did delete this comment, just to reiterate]. my defence would be, i do not agree with the idea that semantic understanding is primary to one's enjoyment of something. i cannot accept this principle simply because i often enjoy things i do not understand or even understand why i enjoy them. I don't know why, but i am, at this moment, thinking of Jackson Pollock paintings. some of those are fascinating, and no matter which way you cut it, i don't understand them in any consciously cerebral sense. however, there are paintings of his that i like and ones i don't, and i think i could come to some understanding of why "that one works" and "that one doesn't" and give a critique.
I am not upset with anyone, and I can accept that I am dense. People get so angry when you discuss anything it's actually sorta sad. My philosophy teacher in college called me an evil person that's going to hell when I suggested that God might actually be Satan, since Satan is the ultimate deceiver... he got so angry it was sort of rediculous.
so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.
however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]
(07-20-2016, 11:35 AM)Pdeathstar Wrote: [quote='shemthepenman' pid='213815' dateline='1468980328']my thesis is supported through emperical observation. Yours ain't. -- if your thesis [again, can't remember] is the opposite assertion "an understood poem is one more fully enjoyed", then i suggest you look up the word empirical. both understanding and enjoyment are subjective states. if you can empirically observe either, then you are a wizard and teach me your secrets. however, if you mean that you have been told "i understood that poem, therefore i enjoyed it" [which i highly doubt], this is anecdotal evidence, at best. i have heard said, often, "i don't know what you just said, but i like it!" who wins?
a poem you can understand is not one more fully enjoyed. see, i can make subjective statements posing as facts too!
Quote:anyway, and irregardless, of course you can critique a poem you don't semantically understand, unless you're a pompous twat, of course. irregardless [i'm starting to like this dimwitted word], popularity doesn't equate to quality. unless you think every number 1 is the best song that week. justin for the win!
You can of course critique, but you're critiques will be of limited use to the poem's author. Irregardless, I'm not sure why you're resulting to name calling to argue your point into the ground. -- fair point, well made. i must have been in a mood [one of my turns] which is why i deleted the comment. i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.
Quote: i don't understand quantum mechanics, and nor do you; yet, i wouldn't go critiquing the black-body radiation problem based on the argument "well, i don't get it"
Actually, I got a PH.D. in quantum mechanics, so.... Why would you bother spouting off anything at all on a subject you know almost nothing about? Or, if you did, would it help the quantum mechanist in any measurable way? --well, you must be american, because i've never heard of someone having a phd in quantum mechanics ["If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."]. regardless, yes, you make a good point. however, i think it is based on my poorly worded argument. what i think i was trying to say [if i remember correctly] not understanding something semantically doesn't preclude you from critiquing it. there are other elements to be considered. and with regards to the quantum argument, saying "i don't get it" as a criticism benefits no one, and the meaning of the thing one is looking at doesn't necessarily relate to one's understanding of it -- i must admit, though, i am not entirely sure why i made this statement in the first place, so that's all a bit ad hoc :/
Quote:you seem to be of the opinon that understanding is elitism; or that appreciation of complexity is alienation.
No. No. no. no. no. no. You are hung up on the idea that the "not understanding" the poem or not getting any meaning from the poem is solely caused by the lack of attention the author gave to the work. That is not what I have been saying, but you've been to busy pressing the reply button mocking me to stop and think. Not being able to deriving meaning from the poem could just be a case of you being a dumb ignorant morane. Still, I think that that demishes your ability to enjoy the peice and your ability to deliver effective critique. People have always prefer to understand things, that is why God exists. --again point taken [yeah yeah, i did delete this comment, just to reiterate]. my defence would be, i do not agree with the idea that semantic understanding is primary to one's enjoyment of something. i cannot accept this principle simply because i often enjoy things i do not understand or even understand why i enjoy them. I don't know why, but i am, at this moment, thinking of Jackson Pollock paintings. some of those are fascinating, and no matter which way you cut it, i don't understand them in any consciously cerebral sense. however, there are paintings of his that i like and ones i don't, and i think i could come to some understanding of why "that one works" and "that one doesn't" and give a critique.
I am not upset with anyone, and I can accept that I am dense. People get so angry when you discuss anything it's actually sorta sad. My philosophy teacher in college called me an evil person that's going to hell when I suggested that God might actually be Satan, since Satan is the ultimate deceiver... he got so angry it was sort of rediculous.
so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.