What makes an educated scholar "better" than a teenage girl who enjoys Twilight? What makes a wealthy nobleman better than a pleb?What makes those of you who read better than people who don't, or who read what you would consider to be books "for plebs?"Please explain this to me.
Those are some nice, original, unique, provocative questions OP. Thanks for this thread
"better" is such a plebeian adjective
The only difference is how you perceive those.The teenage girl read less than the scholar. Does that tell me he has a better taste than her? I don't know, it's up to me.The girl has her reasons, the scholar has his, and what are my reasons for reading a book? Who gets to be closer to those reasons?Nothing makes one better than the other, because there is no such a thing as something being better than the other if you don't have standards. And the standards will forever be yours.Circlejerk (of scholars and teenage girls) is what happends when they are just worlds apart.
>>2827980I'm genuinely curious. I see /lit/ refer to one thing as better than another, and even to more educated people as better than less educated people. Not to mention thinking they're better than people who would rather play Halo than read.
>>2827993That's just a convention. We can't be all touchy about stuff we generally agree on, so we say it's shit or it is glorious. That doesn't mean we don't know it depends.
>>2827995In the cases of books and such, I get that. But in the cases of people, based on what they enjoy doing with their time, I don't get where the sense of superiority originates. How is a doctor better than a plumber?
Because I know more things, think deeper thoughts, and am more cultured and more erudite than your average pleb. Someone easily captivated by trash like Twilight is obviously beneath me and not up to my standards. I can still tolerate them, though.
>>2828006Why is knowing more things better than knowing fewer things? Why is it important to think deep thoughts? Who says culture is a good thing? What qualifies you to say that Twilight is trash, or that someone captivated by it is somehow beneath you?
>>2828005But it's not. The only thing that comes with acting like that is self-affirmation. But remember, one thing is not better than the other. Self-affirmation is not bad. It's fun, you should try. Or else you are just a faggy piece of shit scum Twilight reader neckbeard hipster idiot.
>>2828011Self affirmation doesn't require a person to put himself or herself above other people. I think I'm fucking awesome. Doesn't mean you're not just as great, even if you like different things than me.
>>2828018I never said it is required, I sait it is an act of self affirmation, that's all.And why would that be so bad?
>>2828010I consider it beneficial to know more things and deep thoughts. It gives me a deeper sense of satisfaction knowing that I'm more aware of my surroundings. Other people may not consider it beneficial and can be comfortable knowing few things - that's fine. It only adds to my sense of superiority and how fucking great I am.Twilight is trash because it's shitty drivel for teenage girls. It doesn't compare in my mind to better books I've read.
>>2828023Because it makes claims about quality that are based on assumptions about the nature of reality. That the quality of a thing is actually a reflection of it and not of my own notions of quality.
>>2828024>Other people may not consider it beneficial and can be comfortable knowing few thingsBut if other people find it just as beneficial to know few things, how does knowing more make you superior?>Twilight is trash because it's shitty (subjective) drivel (subjective) for teenage girls.What makes teenage girls inferior to you? Just that they know less? If so, see the first part of this post.>It doesn't compare in my mind to better books I've read.What makes those books better? And what makes your mind so important?
People who claim that some people are better than other people are in a place that I can't sympathize with
>>2828034Because I'm technically smarter, which I like. Plus I'm pretty confident in other areas as well. Everything's a plus.Teenage girls in general are inferior because they're teenage girls. I don't over-generalize though since there are likely some smart teenage girlsThose books are better because I derive more meaning and merit from them.>How can you tell what has meaning and what doesn't?I read for applicable world knowledge and to increase my scope of topics. Twilight fails in this respect. Blah blah blah
>>2828029It's not a way to think, it's a way to talk, it's a way to act.
>>2828056>Teenage girls in general are inferior because they're teenage girls. I don't over-generalize though since there are likely some smart teenage girlsYou still haven't shown why smarter is better than dumber.
let's get serious here. When someone says "better", they usually don't mean it in a universe-related, immutable way. They mean it in a societal kind of way - based on a consensus of experts (experts being your opinion leader of choice) something is or isn't "better" or "good".So for scholars and teenage girls, we say the scholar, for the purposes of knowledge and ability to appreciate literature, is "better", because the scholar has been educated in what a collection of experts believe is valuable knowledge about literature. You could go on to say that the experts don't know anything and are complete idiots, I guess, but on what basis could you say such a thing? It is all opinion, after all.
>>2828072If they don't believe it's universal or immutable, then why are they such self-assured pricks about it?
>>2828069Dumb people know less things and are therefore less educated on certain topics. This makes them not only simple-minded but uninteresting to talk to or be around. They offer no challenges or stimulation and are complacent in their know-nothingness. I like to talk about more than the latest batman movie, such as societal/philosophical issues and whatnot so that I hear different perspectives and see how I can interpolate it into my worldview. If we ARE talking about Batman then the conversation has to be deeper than OMG SO AWESOME ALL DA EXPLOSIONSThis is just my perspective and it's not holy. Do whatever you want
>>2828088They have hundreds of years of literary scholarship to back them up.Why do some priests seem like such assholes?
>>2828094>Dumb people know less things and are therefore less educated on certain topics.True.>This makes them not only simple-minded but uninteresting to talk to or be around.What's so important about things being interesting?>They offer no challenges or stimulation and are complacent in their know-nothingness.Why is this bad?>I like to talk about more than the latest batman movie, such as societal/philosophical issues and whatnot so that I hear different perspectives and see how I can interpolate it into my worldview. If we ARE talking about Batman then the conversation has to be deeper than OMG SO AWESOME ALL DA EXPLOSIONSWhy are you projecting what you "like" out onto the world around you and making objective claims about what's "better" based on what you personally like?>This is just my perspective and it's not holy. Do whatever you wantThen you aren't answering my question in the OP, which is why so many people on /lit/ do think their opinions are holy.
>>2828095>They have hundreds of years of literary scholarship to back them up.Why does that matter?>Why do some priests seem like such assholes?I dunno. They're probably assholes.
>>2828101>Why does that matter?Ask the society which has put such scholarship on a pedestal. You obviously don't get how subjectivity works, especially considering your niggardly, combative tone.
>>2828099I'm technically superior in these aspects therefore I BELIEVE have more authority. Again, it doesn't really matter. It's just how I choose to be entertained. If I come on /lit/ and throw the word 'pleb' around it's to simultaneously troll and encourage this 'better' taste.
>>2828108I do get how subjectivity works. I just don't understand why people on /lit/ behave as if their subjective opinion is objective fact.
I think what OP is getting at is that arbitrary measures of quality (inferiority and superiority) are okay so long as they are made with the awareness of their inherit subjectivity, and therefor invalidity.Otherwise, I'm lost. I think other people have already established that such measures are given weight by the very fact the individual is the one making them, it's a closed loop. Like saying, "pleasure is good," you cannot explain why.Sure, there is also the perspective that one can be aware that they are not the end-all, but the alternative perspective is just as valid.
>not using value terms simply as expressions of emotion
>>2828122>>2828157It's not subjective, it's relative.
