I've noticed a lot anons on Veeky Forums using 'story' and 'plot' interchangeably. It triggers me slightly.
But let's have a discussion that has never been entirely resolved in narrative theory, Veeky Forums, how would you define these three terms: story, plot narrative.
Or do you prefer fabula and sjuzhet?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
web.randi.org
twitter.com
Define how you see them first.
A story relates an overall experience.
A plot is a series of connected events.
Narrative is the means of telling the story, which is elucidated by outlining the plot(s).
This was more or less my feelings on it. I agree.
>I've noticed a lot anons on Veeky Forums using 'story' and 'plot' interchangeably. It triggers me slightly.
What triggers me is how people like you mention a perceived mistake that annoys you but never actually explain why it's wrong.
How is:
>an overall experience
Different from:
>a series of connected events
?
It was clear to me OP was looking to learn and clarify, so I didn't expect him to be able to articulate further why it annoyed him.
Try again.
Story: What happens, all events in the diegesis. Chronologically in order. The substance
Plot: The things that happen in the text, often implying a causal relationship. What we are given, and the order its given in. The way the story is told.
Narrative: same as plot
You're assuming that all events can be connected logically.
Have you noticed that overall life proceeds illogically? That is a story.
>Have you noticed that overall life proceeds illogically?
Things that seem "illogical" are actually logical things you just have incomplete information on.
Overall experience is self-expanatory
A series of connected events can also be simplified as "the events of the story in their order of appearance", a very top-down view of the work.
>the story is a coming of age for a young boy
>the plot is he lives on his own and kills a bear, and make peace with natives to prove his worth to Pa
>A series of connected events can also be simplified as "the events of the story in their order of appearance", a very top-down view of the work.
So a plot is just a story with less personal attachment? Like someone's internal monologue is the story and another person's notes on the main character for a sociology paper is the plot?
So a story is a highly generalized summary of the plot?
The personal attachment is relative. Whether it's more or less is irrelevant.
It doesn't really bother me, you know, it was hyperbole. I do think it's a distinction worth making, though 99% of the time you know what a person means anyway. I was just interested in what everyone thinks.
I study lit at university but I'm socially anxious af so I don't talk to any of my peers about literary theory. Just give me this, user.
Except every single time in the history of observational science this has been the case.
It can be, but that is a pedestrian definition of it.
>every single experience has been observed by history
I'm glad that life is mapped out. Soon we will predict the future and life will be like it is in Interstellar.
You wouldn't be able to make your sarcastic posts visible to other people on the opposite side of the planet through a complex telecommunications system if the world weren't mathematical and logical.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I believe in what I said.
You misread me.
>the world
>implying problems and patterns of nature can't exist in a larger metaphysical superstructure which doesn't conform to the laws of science and mathematics.
>The world is mathematical, the world is logical, the world thinks, the world is conscious.
You obviously don't believe:
>every single experience has been observed by history
>the world thinks, the world is conscious
I have no idea where you're getting those two ideas from, they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about and I don't see any evidence for the world thinking or being conscious.
>the world is logical. The world is mathematical.
What did he mean by this?
So when magicians do tricks, do they get their power from the larger metaphysical superstructure which doesn't conform to the laws of science and mathematics? Or do they instead rely on misdirection and the incomplete information available to their audience?
I do believe it is there to be accessed.
One day, our scientific knowledge will catch up, we will be able to transcend time restraints and know true eternal life.
He means that mathematics existed before the creation of man and that it is not an abstract human construct.
What tricks can you do?
Mathematics existed before the human species did. Mathematics doesn't need mathematicians to exist. If a tree has fruits growing on it and a dinosaur eats two of them, it'll then have eight fruits regardless of if a mathematician is around to write about it.
The concept of two did exist before man.
*If a tree has ten fruits
The label "two" didn't exist. What the label refers to certainly existed long before man.
What are you on about?
>their power
The world can't be logical, logic is a deductive process of reasoning. You have to be conscious to be logical. And I'm not sure I can work out what "the world is mathematical" even means.
I don't know what the magicians have to do with anything.
If by 'world' you mean earth, and by mathematical you mean physical processes are predictable based on mathematical models, then yes.
I agree that man wasn't the first creation in the universe.
>What the label refers to certainly existed long before man.
Sort of maybe perhaps arguably.
No, what the label "two" refers to existed before any conscious being existed. Consciousness isn't required for the existence of what that label refers to.
I agree that the universe was relatively unconscious before the existence of man.
This is just a argument of semantics. It's meaningless.
>semantics
Totally out of place on a forum dedicated to literature.
Thinking hurts.
He meant "I touch myself to logical positivism please rape my asshole"
The label 'two' specifies quantity. You can't just have 'two' by itself. It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun. Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
>argument of semantics.
>meaningless.
Hang on...
Why don't you go win a million dollars with that non-logical, trans-mathematical thing you believe exists:
"I am two," is a foreboding statement, isn't it?
You don't get it. You obviously didn't start with the Greeks.
I don't agree with your leap from:
>It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun.
To:
>Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
The "noun" can just be inanimate objects like rocks. There's no need for a thinking party except to come up with a label for that instance of twoness. It would still exist and display the qualities of twoness in the absence of a thinker. And then billions of years later a thinker could discover evidence of what went on and the accounting he'd do with the evidence he had would check out because twoness existed long before any thinking creatures existed to give it a label.
It definitely doesn't. To talk about 2 you have to have a concept of objects that are in some way group able or fungible, and more basic to that you need a way of defining or delineating so you can start to say "this is this, that is not this" etc
If you want to go down a world of forms style argument that's a different beast to your argument.
Not an argument. Also:
>Implying Plato wouldn't agree that mathematics precedes the existence of man
>objects like rocks
He's using more language again. He's trying to escape language by throwing more language at it.
Bro I feel I must imagine you happy.
Why do humans conceptually care what exists without them, I wonder. Boredom? Escapism?
If there was no thinker, then there would be nothing to link anything together metonymically, everything would just be 'infinite' things, because there would be nothing to distinguish objects from their constituent parts as 'whole' objects.
I'm not trying to "escape language." Language is a perfectly good tool for referring to objects and ideas about objects.
Plato had the audacity to elucidate as a fact that all forms pre-exist in the mind. What an idiot.
> Socrates is a mouthpiece for Plato interpretation
Fucking plebs. And every time that world of forms comes up there's a shit ton of aporia coming up. And the world of forms can't be said to precede anything, the whole concept of time is an illusion.
You don't like the idea of adjective referring to a noun and to counteract that you throw a bunch more nouns at it and now you think it's STILL a solid argument because nouns refer to nouns!
Language as opposed to ... ?
Time exists, in different ways.
Time is the most interesting and real aspect of the universe.
Time is infinity. Time is God.
>You don't like the idea of adjective referring to a noun
Incorrect. I didn't like the idea of one specific adjective referring to one specific other noun. You're making it sound like I'm opposed to the application of any adjective to any noun when my argument was clearly that the noun having to be a thinking person didn't make sense. The noun could just as well be an unthinking rock.
The thing language refers to. Pointing hand vs. moon being pointed at, pic related.
In the world of forms there is no time. It appears there's time because tricksy shadows dancing on a cave wall.
So it's not exactly correct to say it precedes anything, it just is. Any other ideas you might have on time may well be great in themselves but you'd need a new argument
He's not the same person that brought up Plato, I'm that person and I'm not him.
>You're making it sound like I'm opposed to the application of any adjective to any noun when my argument was clearly that the noun having to be a thinking person didn't make sense. The noun could just as well be an unthinking rock.
Let me try to understand your argument now. As you've written it it seems it has something to do with "2 thinking persons" being terrible unlike "2 unthinking rocks" (I cannot make head nor tail of this).
However looking back at the thread it seems you might be saying "an unthinking rock can think of 2 as well as a thinking person". This also makes no sense.
Like serious bro wtf?
My point was not that the noun was a thinking thing. My point was that 'two' is an adjective, and adjectives need a noun, you can't just have 'two' by itself, it has to refer to something. It's an adjective, and adjectives don't exist without people.
Two can't exist without people. The objects that those people name and then use 'two' to describe might exist without people, but they won't be 'two' they'll simply just random collections of tiny shit that is part of an infinite of everything or an infinite of nothing.
The ghost of Parmenides is clearly haunting this thread.
Allow me to be more clear:
Using language as a perfectly good tool for referring to objects and ideas about objects, as opposed to what? What alternative is there than using language. I hope you're making an interesting point, rather than restating the banal.
I don't understand how you're getting any of those ideas. Here's what actually happened:
1) I wrote that the thing the label "two" refers to existed long before man did.
2) Someone else wrote:
>You can't just have 'two' by itself. It's essentially an adjective, which requires a noun. Adjectives don't really exist without someone to think them.
3) I agreed that you need a noun, but disagreed that you needed someone to "think them" i.e. you need two rocks or two trees or whatever other noun you the two is an adjective for, but that doesn't mean you need a thinking entity to think that relationship for it to exist. The math would still exist and would still happen long before any thinking entity came into the picture. You would have two rocks with one getting washed away resulting in five rocks left on the shore just because no human was watching at the time.
The idea of a world of forms pre-existing in the mind is silly. That world isn't there.
It's a "theory" with an agenda that is suspect and shady.
If you're going to say something like "just use plural nouns then, like ROCKS"
Please don't. Plural function of a noun basically serves as an adjective. Ie, numerical functions are descriptive, meaning that they don't exist without humans. Sorry if I'm articulating this well. I've been up for over 24 hours and I'm starting to crash.
Do you know how to make an identifying trip for yourself?
Me, I never get confused or flustered by who said what.
I just respond to ideas.
*You wouldn't have two...
did you read this: No one said anything about the noun needing to be conscious.
The thought about the noun needing to be conscious was preexisting, so why the emphasis on it needing to be stated?
Adjectives do exist without people. The label "adjective" and all the other label words that come with our language don't exist, but the things they refer to do exist. The reason we speak of them in the first place is because they exist and it's useful to work in terms of their existence. We can know about things we don't have direct sensory access to by working with numbers and discerning what must be true from their existence.
It isn't in the mind. It is sort of a byproduct of our human viewpoint and reasoning and so on. It's Parmenides' baby, Plato's is the Cave that marries the unchanging world of forms with the changing world of reality (Anaxagoras more or less).
>but the things they refer to do exist.
If the level of delineation is "existence" you are not going to be able to count to 2. You'd have "existence". That's 1.
If you weren't there, how do you know it pre-existed, is my original question.
Metaphysics is bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but Plato is Oprah-tier philosophy.
...
No it wasn't. The things that nouns refer to can exist without people, because they are tangible things. Adjectives, like quantifying integers, can't exist by themselves. You can just have 'two'. There has to be two something.
This is completely false. Please explain how and what adjectives exist without people to think them. Give specific examples.
Is existence one thing, or infinity?
Some things didn't pre-exist? I didn't know the universe and humans shared in its creation. Kind of a co-existence. That's nice.
*can't just have 'two'
Are you high?
I am "Two"--a terrifying superhero/villain that you cannot conceive of.
So explain what is two.
Are you naively riding the waves of my sarcasm? Get ready to crash soon.
You don't even know what two is m8
Uh oh.
> before man counting was not practical. You only had one and infinity. In fact you only had one which also was infinity.
I'm glad we have counting 2.0 now.
>explain to you what you what you cannot conceive of
If you don't even understand that concept, you're pretty much behind in our class.
The number 2 is an illusion. It is the number 1 looking into a mirror.
2 is a lie.
>Doesn't recognise rhetoric
>doesn't accept their ineffective "rhetoric"
Two can't exist without people to quantify things. You took on an unwinnable argument. No need to get bitter.
>Two can't exist without people to quantify things.
You're confusing the label for two with two.
I agree that mankind is the source of mathematics. I'm sure that some user reading this will be the object of your singular attention.
Two IS a label and nothing more. There is no such thing as two without people, because it's a label. If there's no people then there's no two. What is two if not a label? How does it exist without people? If you actually had a case you'd be able to articulate it in a simple way.
If OP is still here, how confused are you by the way this thread drifted?
>mankind is the source of mathematics
You're confusing the symbols and labels used for a particular instance of a mathematical system with mathematics itself.
>Two IS a label and nothing more.
No, the label "two" is a word used to refer to the quality of two. There can be two rocks without any person around to say "hey, there are two rocks over there."
This is common sense, but those who are Platonic are like Gollum and they hold onto Platonic concepts of pre-existing forms like their precious.