Yes, of course they can
No way, people are way too prejudiced
Don't know and don't care
What was the question again?...
We are objective. Objectivity is how war is created, rascism, crime in general all created by objectivity. objectivity means to view humans as objects not subjects as in subjectivity.
Objectivity=a jock, a terrorist,a piece of ***, a jew
Subjectivity=a man, a woman, a child
Objectivity is a will. Subjectivity is a feeling. Yes when we will we objectively concentrate and when we feel we subjectively think.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Will have to ask the tyrants, nepotists, despots, dictators from the Middle East after the next episode we get a chance to show our objectivity. We'll have better witnesses than at the Watchtower.
there is absolutely no such thing as an object,
"it is pure event" see S. R. Allen 's "Gnosis the emergence of individuated holistic intelligence"
OH well I am not so sure. An object is what a man creates. A subject is closer to home emotionally then an object and so I would it is subjective to the individual to how we interpret either.Originally Posted by russell g
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
"The term objective, as applied to art, has only a temporary significance, if it has any. It is too usually considered that an artist is one who projects himself into external phenomena, and transcribes it. I am more inclined to believe that there is no such thing as objective writing in fiction, but in science there has been much, and it has paralysed science for centuries . . . There is but one science in the world: it is psychology, and psychology can only be attempted by a fully-conscious being. One should not write a book for other people; there are no other people. A book should be written to clarify the mind of its writer and to prepare food for genius" - James Stephens ("An Essay in Cubes" 87-88).
"There is only one science." What a crazy statement, regardless of what science is selected.
The object of desire is to begot. Humans are like machines they mass produce to get. If only mass production was a mass of feelings and coordination. Imagine I would want some of that and more.
Are humans objective? yes to the extremes that they sail pass humans like robots.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Remember who we're talking about here, a modernist writer at the height of literary modernism. While I would agree with your argument that claiming only one science is pretty short-sighted and, well, rather ridiculous, but I have to admit that I didn't necessarily put Stephens's argument in context. He is discussing what makes a successful novelist. Given the push to balance the novel between plot and narrative action and psychological expression, I tend to agree with him a little more, based only on the period. One of the primary goals of the modernists was to create protagonists who were "whole" men and women. This had been successfully achieved by very few writers before this time, mostly as Stephens argues, because their creators, the author, had failed at truly realizing themselves as complete thinking beings. Again, however, his argument relies primarily on the ability to be objective in fiction writing.
"One should not write a book for other people; there are no other people." Another insane one here, there and anywhere. LOL
Why? How does one write a book for other people? Who is the other that a book could be written for? A book should be written by and for the author, and it should be read by and for the reader. The relationship between an author and an entirely unknown reader is non-existent. The reader can never fully understand the author or authorial intent behind a work; therefore, it is impossible to write content for that reader. Likewise, the author can never fathom anything more than a faceless, common reader - cycle repeated. It's very ego-centric to assume that any writer at any time in any place has ever written a book FOR a reader. The reader is an entirely separate and consequential entity that is wholly reliant on a product that hardly exists as part of the author's mind...
Case closed.
So, you are not writing for me to read it. So you are writing to prick? Have fun.
ROFLMAO!!
You're having trouble separating a novel as a work of art from a novel as a product. We could go about this another way though. Name one book and explain how it was written for you. What ideas and messages did the author include for you, as the reader? How can you know any of that? I'm more than willing to accept a hand written, signed letter from the author that states what he or she wanted you to pull from the work... If it helps, you are welcome to pick any piece of literature that you want.
Last edited by maxphisher; 03-22-2013 at 12:31 PM.
To discuss this with you in any serious way would be like lending myself for free to be ridiculos.
You're offering a lot of laughing and ridiculing and absolutely no thought or basis to your argument. "Just because" will never be a suitable answer to a question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote