<p>NoImagination-- I was simply responding to post 76 and your Shakespeare vs Meyers comment in which you seemed to try to say that there was no subjectivity when determining who’s the “better” writer—and there is.
And the subjectivity is more than just mere technicalities -_-
Be/c believe it or not, these so called “technicalities” are what separates the writings of Stephanie Meyers and that of Proust…stories that leave impact, and give deep insight into the emotions of the human mind, visualization, diction, omg, I mean this takes genius. Not everyone can do what Chaucer, Joyce, Milton, and Austen did.
PS-Trying to argue that Shakespeare is more intelligent than Meyers would be pointless since this whole thread is about intelligence among math/science vs humanities.</p>
<p>@wahkimoocow I was reffering to your first post, about how Shakespeare and Meyers are basically incomparable.</p>
<p>
Let’s trace the argument:</p>
<p>The arts-advocates argued that the production of “great” art represents a work of genius. Artistic and scientific geniuses ought be viewed with the same regard.</p>
<p>I responded that the purpose of art is to appeal to the senses or emotions and that it is therefore subjective. Any objective interpretation of art - such as your proposal based on technical characteristics of writing - does not achieve any subjective satisfaction for me. Nor does it achieve any utilitarian end. Therefore, I reject the value of your objectively-great art and prefer the mathematician to the artist.</p>
<p>OP: Have you ever heard of Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Pascal, Descartes, Leibniz,…? They are great philosophers and mathematicians.</p>
<p>Noimagination–So I’m assuming you equate art with literature? To me, there are not exactly the same. But okay fine, that’s your personal opinion. I respect it.</p>
<p>coolweather-- yups, I am aware of them. And in previous posts, I already stated that I believe people who excel in both areas are the creme de la creme.</p>
<p>
[WordNet</a> Search - 3.0](<a href=“http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=literature]WordNet”>WordNet Search - 3.1)
<a href=“n”>i</a> literature (creative writing of recognized artistic value)*</p>
<p>Literature would be a subset of art.</p>
<p>I think it has to do with accessibility.Almost everyone can understand a literary/humanities argument and even give a counterargument,but only about 2% of the world’s population can even UNDERSTAND a good math or science argument(even fewer can give a counterargument).Those who can handle it must surely be more intelligent.</p>
<p>There are actually ongoing debates as to whether Lit can be considered art. Most of the time, categories will say “Art & Literature”. To me, Lit focuses more on the intellect than the heart. </p>
<p>Villager–Just be/c someone can understand an “argument” doesn’t mean they can necessarily write with the sophistication of Faulkner. The humanities are done for other people to understand and connect with…that’s its goal.
There are books like “Finnegan’s Wake” that probably only about 2% of the population can get through as well lol :p</p>
<p>I dont see that.There is no doctoral philosophy text i cant handle,but bring along the Riemann Hypothesis and most folks on CC will be sweating along with me.</p>
<p>A simple experiment would be to go to kindergarten and say u r a history professor.They wont notice.Then bring smone else who is a math professor and you will see the sense of respect that washes over them.who told them its hard?Ego trips aside we all know which classes we can get easy As.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The writer with “greater command [of] the written language” will be the one who employs either terse writing and/or flowery prose the best. One is not better than the other. It’s in the execution of style that matters. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. The goal of a writer is to get the audience to understand his or her thoughts and observations. If the writer can do this, he has succeeded. In this case, the writer is often far more masterful in his craft than the reader is. The writer takes something lofty and brings it down - through stories, poems, metaphors, and a multitude of other literary tools - so that it can be understood by the audience. The mathematician does the same thing; however, his audience is FAR smaller. A writer wants to capture a universal truth and touch on the human condition, a mathematician cares only about a technical, underlying fact. I may, for example, find Romeo and Juliet’s tragedy to be far more relevant to and reflective of my life than a Riemann zeta function. Because of the disparity between the mastery needed to be a writer and the ability to comprehend written work, people are quick to assume that literature and all of its aspects are far easier than, say, math. </p>
<p>If you’ve never written a timeless, world-renowned piece, you absolutely can’t say that writing is easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no such thing as a good counterargument to a good math argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>orly</p>
<p>One can prove that another’s argument is not always true in math.Infact ,only such a person can identify a good math argument</p>
<p>Okey,i did not say the humanities are useless.I just said they are not that complex relative to the exact sciences</p>
<p>
“Best” is an adjective describing goodness. What criteria determine the goodness of writing?
So, is Tom Clancy better than Herman Melville at writing? Melville fails to bring his writing to a level I can understand.
I’m not sure if I really want to drag this into a philosophical debate, but I do not accept your assumption that there are universal truths regarding the human condition.
What makes a piece timeless or world-renowned?
I hope you are ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>@villager</p>
<p>Complicated math is just like a complex obscure langauge. We, as people, use the english language constantly and do so much writing and reading all of the time. Most people only do real math ever one hour per a weekday during school years. It’s just a matter of ignorence, not a matter of a lack of intellectual compacity or something.</p>
<p>Artistic genius is just as rare as scientific or mathmatic genius too. There isn’t many Shakespeares or Vincinet Van Goughs just as there isn’t many Albert Einsteins or Issac Newtons.</p>
<p>^Nice answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the person’s argument isn’t always true, then it wasn’t an argument, it was gibberish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you clarify this point please.</p>
<p>You guys are all fagtards. /end thread</p>
<p>^ Failure of a ■■■■■.</p>