Forcing good taste?

*to understand life in such a way that they don't appreciate classics
sorry.

how many classics have you read? You can think of a ’classic’ as being an umbrella term for all successful book of any genre. I’m sure you like reading at least one genre, and since every genre has at least one classic, I’m sure you’ll find what you like if you look hard enough.

hm? i think you misunderstand, i'm not talking about myself, i just mean in general. should one be punished or forced into liking something, or molded in such a way to like said thing? is it a moral imperative for the appreciation of nearly universally accepted fine art?

is English your first language?

it is and i happily acknowledge that i'm writing like shit. i've been up for some 36 hours, though it's no excuse, i deeply apologize.

Whoa...

This is deep!

Whoever made these is a fedora-tier autist.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say whoever made them might be called something that rhymes with Pawel Kuczynski.

Its a sign of character and only natural if you dont like every book that's praised as "great" as long as you can argue your point on a intellectual basis and not with reasons like "muh boooring" "muh to many words" "muh no plot" etc

They're spot on though.

But OP you can't force good taste. School is a case study of this. They force kids to read Steinbeck, Shakespeare and such but its always watered down lessons and the kids aren't even actively engaged, its borderline pearls before swine save for the few kids that do get inspired.

Good taste develops through active engagement, not just being told to read some books.

well, what if we cull the bastards? why bother having tasteless freaks?

We'd start with you, retard.

Because schools don't make an excuse to show kids that these books have value.

It wasn't until I took a Shakespeare class at college that I learned he had such a command of the English language that he actually invented words that are still used today. I also wasn't taught that many of his works were adaptations of existing stories, which would've taught me about the universal value these stories have across cultures and generations, and how Shakespeare could've adapted these events into the format of a play. I can't remember anything about Shakespeare's plays in intermediate to high school other than barebones analysis of wordplay.

i'm willing to be the first in a series of martyrs for the betterment of humanity. i bet you wouldn't dare make a sacrifice to ensure appreciation for art. fucking poser

>i bet you wouldn't dare make a sacrifice to ensure appreciation for art. fucking poser
the people who die stay dead, history is written by the winners.

so, you're saying that you're a pussy who wouldn't die for art. gotcha.

It's pretty easy to die m8. You know whats hard? actually making change.

So do your little martyr thing while the real guys work in silence

>martyrdom doesn't effect change
i guess christ and socrates aren't two of if not THE most influential figures in history.

yes OP. you should kill everyone who thinks differently than you because you are enlightened

The quality of literature has both objective and subjective components.

They had followers and witnesses who spread their message after they died. Without Plato we wouldn't know of Socrates like we do, and without the disciples Christs' message would not have reached today..

and those people are dead, user. were they losers because they died? i thought history was written by winners?

that's what i was waiting for. the truth comes out!

although, if you read the OP, i say rehabilitation, not murder. the assumption being that they have a mental illness that needs to be dealt with, like transgenderism

And their message was carried on by monks and scholars throughout the centuries. Think a little bigger user.

And you didnt hear me say dead people were losers. I said it was simple enough to die while not affecting any real change. I hope you aren't going to argue that being alive gives you a little more flexibility as to what you can do in this world.

>affecting
heh.
>So do your little martyr thing while the real guys work in silence
>the people who die stay dead, history is written by the winners.
the stupidity of your comments imply that you need to think a little bigger yourself.
people who martyr themselves can effect great change, you nincompoop. you know people who went on to spread the message of christianity? many of them were martyred too!
the simplistic idea that "history is written by the winners" is something you must have read on the back of a wheaties box.
History as we know it is filled with losers, countless losers who had incredible influence over every day parts of our lives. People who die for causes can inspire and influence in far greater ways than working in the shadows, or underfoot. Don't underestimate death as communication. Don't disrespect the dead as though they were losers, which is definitely what your dumb ass implied.

They died and their story was recorded and spread, the death in itself wasn't the endgame, thats the entire point. Which you seem to agree now.

Again, any asshole can up themselves and say they'll die for something, be it for art or their religion. That in no way implies what you're doing will inspire people or is in anyway noble. The only way your martyrdom will mean anything is if others are inspired by it.

Now in the case of art, at least in Western society, martydom for its preservation is petty romanticism at best. Why? Because we're not a society that's actively destroying what came before like in say Maoist China, at worst is disinterest.

If you're going to be a martyr, then it better be a heartfelt response to something very fucking serious and pressing, not just "I want to be seen as a noble dude".

That's actually the real difference between a martyr and some asshole who wants to stunt. Once again, its simple enough to die.

Also, you're right though my terms were all fucked up and way too glib about the issue. I didn't make a distinction as to what I'd consider cases of what we can call real martydom as opposed to people who put down their lives unnecessarily. There's far too many cases of that even today.

well, first off i think you need to go back and look at the context of the martyrdom. the idea was that people who do not appreciate art should be killed. the proposition included my death, due to your "we'd start with you, retard" comment. it is implied that the martyrdom of all the people who do not appreciate art would be the motion that effects change.
now, you're trying to propose that you'd been arguing my side all along with some nonsensical switcheroonies. i'm not fooled. martyrs effect change by their deaths. that simple. you argued against it as though they don't, and now you're changing your story. you're not even arguing the main point, and have twisted it into some bullshit argument that you think you have the advantage in. you think that the historians you speak of would have anything to write about if the people hadn't martyred themselves to begin with? if people had not died, if christ had not given his life, it would not have been as influential. historians would have written historical records regardless, but the martyrdom itself is the symbol. plato was not compelling because he wrote of himself, but rather because he wrote of socrates. if there wasn't one historian, there would be another, and another, and another. and there are such, and there always will be such, they are not the movers, the ones who die symbolically are the movers of minds and hearts.

>When readers like a certain book, it means that they find it pleasant or respect its value. This whole process is also subjective.
>There is no objective way to measure who is right and who is wrong.
This shit is so intellectually lazy. It's the Veeky Forums equivalent of fence-sitting ancap autists from /pol/. There is always a reason for liking or not liking something. If that reason is logical/reasonable, then it's good. If it's not then it's shit. Do you honestly think science won't be able to parse out and quantify everything eventually? That we'll always just wonder what makes people appreciate good(hurr subjective) writing? All of this will be quantified eventually.

well, since you tried to meet me halfway, i feel bad about my last thrust, but i don't think i was wrong. anyway, i'm in no way seriously considering that people should die for the sake of art in the sense that if they don't like don quixote they should be executed or some nonsense, but that was the conversation from the beginning, anyway, i made this thread not realizing that there was another that was attempting the same thing, talking about objective opinions. i was more trying to satirize the fact that we're so quick to say that no opinion is more valid than another, that subjectivity rules, while simultaneously shitting on every single person who walks in talking about YA. not that I like YA, but it seems like there's a disconnect there, and i'm curious why that might be. why is it that we know that opinions are subjective, but we act as though they are objective?

>eventually
keyword

Taste is subjective.

What I like you may not and vice-versa.

Would you try to force someone to change their mind just to make you feel better? No - you'd be no better than a SJW.

>being lazy

see But things are still true regardless of how long it takes to measure them.

the purpose of the thread was to reveal the duplicitous nature of Veeky Forums. so many of us logically argue that subjectivity rules, yet when confronted with that which we disagree, we bully as though it is indeed objective.
i am curious to know what the heart of this is.

true is a big word. Right now subjectivity is "true".

truth as a word has no utility if that's the case. if anything, it spurs anarchy.

yes but what you like/dislike in a book may not be the same criteria that another user likes/dislike book.

Only thing is I dont go around saying I have to force you to like my stuff.

the boy walks like a fag. deserves it.

If only we could heal being a jew or a nigger or a woman!

If they were Black, what you'd have?

>afro-turf!

>son, the books are givin you the gay, i've come to teach you how to be a man with the television.
>implying any of those things are on the same tier as literally removing your own genitalia
well, i guess jews do the circumcision thing, so yeah, jews count too. but the rest? that's just bigotry, man.

slow down or feet will be read

THIS IS SO SAD 1000 LIKE

nice

i don’t get it

best post on Veeky Forums rn

>Do you honestly think science won't be able to parse out and quantify everything eventually?
One person gets a hit of dopamine from reading a certain passage, another person doesn't. Is that not subjective?

>let's put people into reeducation camps so they start to like books like harry potter
do you even understand what you are implying there? commonly held great books are garbage in most cases because the common population is retarded

what else have you learned about Shakespeare? Please tell me you learned from reading the poetry of his plays, rather than just learning facts like he "invented" words and that he did adaptations. What can you tell me about Hamlet or Rosalind or the downfall of Othello or the tragedy of Lear?

"there is no objective way to measure who is right and who is wrong," sure, because you're talking about opinions, but there IS an objective way to measure if a work of art is good or great or bad. Are we to throw out factors of craft like style, meaning, impact, takeaway, and sublimity? Can anyone earnestly say that 50 Shades of Grey is not objectively worse than The Statue of David?

You're a fucking idiot my dude

That lawnmower would be scalping and likely killing a majority of those kids.

None of that concerns quality. I can like something and still know that it's awful, and vice versa.

How can you know it's awful? Only from the culmination of your subjective experiences, just expressed by a different function of your brain than the part that determines whether you like it. You probably think of certain things as awful now that you once thought of as great and vice versa, which you was right?