/pt/ – Petrarchan

>>7023 Reminds me of a part in I think Arthur Koestler's Sleepwalkers where he talks about famous scientists holding specific beliefs that would become extremely quaint in their lifetimes, and never conceding even if later generations found it silly. Like Tesla calling Einstein's relativity stupid. >>7024 I'm not surprised that your disagreement is hostile, because from experience it seems the kind of person who's likely to stick to older views is the kind who's more self-assured in general and more quick to judge. But personally, yeah, I'm not "anti-woke" because I don't side with my nation or race. Overall I believe in the aristocratic world view, that a tiny portion of the population is just sort of categorically better than the hoi polloi and deserves the right to rule over them. I think if you really are emotionally attached to whiteness and anti-wokeness and whatever, you have no eye for history because those concepts mean absolutely nothing outside of our current era.

>>7023 Reminds me of a part in I think Arthur Koestler's Sleepwalkers where he talks about famous scientists holding specific beliefs that would become extremely quaint in their lifetimes, and never conceding even if later generations found it silly. Like Tesla calling Einstein's relativity stupid. >>7024 I'm not surprised that your disagreement is hostile, because from experience it seems the kind of person who's likely to stick to older views is the kind who's more self-assured in general and more quick to judge. But personally, yeah, I'm not "anti-woke" because I don't side with my nation or race. Overall I believe in the aristocratic world view, that a tiny portion of the population is just sort of categorically better than the hoi polloi and deserves the right to rule over them. I think if you really are emotionally attached to whiteness and anti-wokeness and whatever, you have no eye for history because those concepts mean absolutely nothing outside of our current era.

>>7026 >But personally, yeah, I'm not "anti-woke" because I don't side with my nation or race. If I were to use the word "anti-woke" I would mean it largely in the sense of cosmopolitan colorblindness like that and not Republican hostility. In that context, your statement is contradictory. If it helps you understand, it's more like "a-woke" in the sense that an atheist is not someone outright hostile to religion (antitheist) and the word atheist just kind of gets painted that way by people lazily generalizing the picture of a neckbeard onto the word. >Overall I believe in the aristocratic world view What relevance does this have to literally anything that was written before it? Are you high?

>>7026 You were posed a few interesting questions regarding your original point and chose instead to talk about wokeness? Who are you to criticize the rest of your generation for lack of fresh ideas when you can't elaborate on one before returning to a topic that's been discussed to death for over a decade now? You seem to connect being delusional with not having or conforming to new ideas and don't do much to justify the association. Do you deny that older ideas have the potential to be more in tune with reality than newer ones? >It's like nah, music evolves, they're doing new things. >I think if you really are emotionally attached to whiteness and anti-wokeness and whatever, you have no eye for history because those concepts mean absolutely nothing outside of our current era. So which is it? Are new ideas good because they're an 'evolution', or are they bad because they 'mean absolutely nothing outside of our current era'? I know I'm nitpicking a bit here, but it seems strange to bemoan a lack of novelty in one post and criticize something for being too novel in another.

>>7033 >Would love to hear what young people art is so fascinating and inspiring to OP lol Do you know R. Crumb? There's a slice in the documentary about him, Crumb (1994), where he just shows off his extensive record collection and his obsession with 1930s blues. Crumb was a post-war child who grew up in the 50s, and went over to the black side of town regularly to get blues and jazz records. By the 1990's, this music was 60 years out of date, yet he continued listening to these records and collecting them. Now, bear in mind that Crumb was a member of the Flower Power generation who lived on Haight-Ashbury in '67, and he's still alive now. He witnessed the entire lifespan of modern pop music, from the 50's monoculture to 60's counterculture, to arena rock, the 80's subculture explosion, etc. and he's still dressing like a guy from the 1930's. At what point can we admit to ourselves there's a pattern here? My own favorite music came out in the 80's and 90's before I was born, and as I get older this doesn't seem to change. When I discovered 80's dream pop, shoegaze, 90's slowcore, post-rock etc. that was it, nothing has affected me as deeply since (with a small number of exceptions). I feel it's a fact that how the brain develops from birth to age 16 determines these things. These are only two anecdotes, but maybe you'll get what I mean.

>>7055 So, yes, you are high.

>>7087 ...Which means our preference for certain music isn't a hill to die on, but rather something to accept as being conditioned by brain development, and therefore subjective in a big way. I brought up scientists because they go through the same thing. Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms states that individual scientists rarely give up their own paradigms, and it's actually through successive, broader, invisible changes of the paradigm across younger generations of scientists that science goes on to change its general approach over time. In other words, I find it funny how everyone believes that if they lived in the 1700's, they'd just go through their lives naturally embracing new scientific theories, new political theories, and new music until they arrived at the current era, roughly 20 years before or after their birth, where all the scientific theories are correct, all the political theories have been perfected, and music peaked. It all seems so ridiculous to imagine you'd be that person, when you are so profoundly reluctant to embrace the most minor change happening in front of you, and so accepting this change becomes the task of the next generation.

>>7088 I agree with you generally but some of us genuinely are better at it than others. There are a lot more people online these days and I've been increasingly disappointed in their ability to reason. Once upon a time you would have something like a "skeptic" community but there was a pretty hard schism in that a decade ago and in my view the people with less sense retained control of the names, organizations, websites, accounts, etc and the reasonable ones were scattered to the wind. Scientific theories are always being refined, that's their whole shtick. And it's not that political theories have been perfected, but rather that the ones in vogue are just plainly dumber than ones in recent memory. Backslides to a local minimum can happen without it implying a global maximum was reached.

>>7090 I don't disagree. But in this thought experiment, where we take a person in the year 1700 and let them live to 2025, then regardless of that person's individual character or moral character or their intelligence/diligence/whathaveyou, they just won't resemble a person from 2025 at a fundamental level and we're not sure why. If you tell me with a straight face that everything peaked so closely to your birth, I'll think you're naive. It is many times more sensible to assume that if R. Crumb is still hording old blues records in the 90's (and today), there's something he can hear in those records that you and I cannot. If the Greek marble statues still resonate so powerfully with people, then we should take this less as assurance that good culture is timeless and more that Greek ingenuity was so immense that their art broke the rule, and captured the hearts of successive generations for centuries, who look back on their own past with apathy. When I was a kid, I read Dickens novels. It was very immersive, like my head was a radio tuning into the 19th century, but the curious thing is that due to how people in the 19th century interpreted their lives in a different way from us, so too did the feelings they had about things diverge from us. You can call this bullshit or an unsubstantiated claim, and I can't stop you because this is only an anecdote, and a niche one at that. If I learn something intuitively, I can rationally justify it afterwards but it's still based on intuition. If you've never had an intuition like that, you might reject it outright. Nonetheless, that's what I believe: People from earlier generations truly do have minds that aren't quite the same as ours, they don't function like ours, they process information in different ways and feel different things. And this process is irrational.