<p>@noimagination</p>
<p>You don’t see the musicality of Nabokov’s prose? Fine. I don’t understand Schrödinger’s cat.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean I won’t acknowledge the importance of quantum mechanics. I can admit that I just don’t “get it” (yet).</p>
<p>It’s the arrogance of math/science people that gets to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many of the aspects that contribute to your enjoyment of a work and the aspects that would yield objective distinction are mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>@LastYearsMan-- Exactly. I think I am just puzzled by the amount of arrogance too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be careful about employing proper qualifiers to avoid invalid generalizations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was not aimed at you. It was aimed at the “■■■■ anyone can read a book but i can do multivariable calculus” sentiment of previous posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can “not understand” it, but that doesn’t take away the truth of Schrodinger’s work. (And to preempt criticism - yes, the scientific method is based on faith, but no, that doesn’t make it any less useful.) There’s nothing objective about Nabokov’s prose. Either it “works” for you or it doesn’t, and neither of those is better. J.K. Rowling has very straightforward descriptions relative to Nabokov’s and some people appreciate that better.</p>
<p>^By the way, the distorted miniaturism in that Vermeer painting is pretty cool. The other looks…stiff. I could actually tell that from the beginning. But it’s still better by my standards than the works of Giotto and other highly revered artists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please elaborate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So was Rembrandt not a master? Or were all of his students masters?</p>
<p>@proletariat2</p>
<p>You must not have finished reading my post. My point was precisely that, even though I don’t understand it, I can appreciate the value of Schrodinger’s work.</p>
<p>
See 2C in post #44.</p>
<p>A few MORE thoughts:</p>
<ol>
<li>Arguing between Einstein and Proust is, at least based on my interpretation of the OP, irrelevant in this context.* I think you will find few people who will not consider them both exceptionally talented in their respective subjects. The OP was primarily discussing high school / college disputes regarding the subjects, and that is what I was addressing.
EDIT: While I stand by this point, I consider the new avenue of discussion rather interesting and will address it below as well. Carry on.
</li>
<li>Does anyone else see the irony here?
<p>* It is also rather a waste of time. The only possible way to definitively issue a verdict on either side is by utilizing a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis, in which case Einstein clearly wins. However, the point of Proust is not necessarily to comply with a coldly utilitarian worldview.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove the scientific method. Prove it to me.</p>
<p>You can’t. It’s metaphysical. (Ok, I’m probably using that term wrong, but I mean it as explanations of physical phenomena - one level abstracted from the physical.) My point is that it’s useful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it’s TRUE. But Lolita isn’t “true” - or at least, it isn’t “true” for all of us. It’s true for those with the right background. (I’ve never read all of it, but I’ve read plenty of works considered to be of the same literary caliber.) Schrodinger’s work is useful in all cases because it allows us to explain physical phenomena in a useful way. Lolita isn’t really useful to all of us.</p>
<p>@InRisingMist-- I think I fail to understand your point be/c both artworks seem to have been painted by skillful people (in my opinion). i guess a person who is knowledgeable about the technicalities of art might be able to tell easily which painting shows a greater level of skill. but at first glance, a person like myself, can not tell.</p>
<p>@proletariat2</p>
<p>Now you’re arguing from what noimagination appropriately described as a “utilitarian cost-benefit” perspective. Of course not everyone in the world appreciates Nabokov. That isn’t the point.</p>
<p>@noimagination: “I think you will find few people who will not consider them both exceptionally talented in their respective subjects.” Yes that was my main point–and also a point you seemed to have argued against in the beginning. People are respectable in their own fields–and the argument that one person is more intelligent than the other (solely based on whether or not they are geniuses in math/science or the humanities) makes absolutely no sense.</p>
<p>I think that we as a society are focused on the future. Science and math fields are found preferable due to this acknowledgment. Individuals who possess alternative methods or theories that can benefit society as a whole directly and physically are looked upon appealingly. In addition, if an individual who is intrigued by science formulates a certain plausible explanation for a concept that differentiates from normality, than one acknowledges that individual and praises them for their discovery.</p>
<p>In contrast, humanities focus more on the past and present. While there have been predictions for possible future outcomes incorporated throughout books and literature, resolutions are not as frequently elaborated upon. Individuals in general want direct outcomes and benefits initiated into their lives. Discoveries and contrasting viewpoints with physical evidence enable individuals to gain a comprehension of certain aspects associated within their lives through visible proof, or what society constitutes as proof.</p>
<p>Despite this though, humanities do possess positive aspects and becoming educated in them can serve as a benefactor. In terms of speech and communication, one can elaborate on their perspectives and viewpoints, something that makes the subjects meaningful and purposeful for the individual. Humanities provide a more sentimental and expressive approach. Those who have mastered the subjects are enabled to establish their beliefs and thoughts and acquire a sense of individualism, something that is found preferable. One would be able to communicate effectively and utilize history to comprehend and develop perspective.</p>
<p>Ultimately, both are acknowledged favorably and can serve as benefactors within one’s life.</p>
<p>
Art can be defined as “the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions”. And that’s great. But different things will appeal to different people’s senses or emotions, which is exactly why taste is relevant. The only way I can possibly evaluate the success of a work of art is by estimating how it appeals to my senses or emotions, which is basically taste.</p>
<p>On the contrary, science is essentially “any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome”. While you may not like a mathematical formula, that doesn’t matter because the value of the formula is evaluated not by your emotional reaction but rather by its logical consistency.
But even people outside of math/science fields have little choice but to see the value of those fields and those who excel at them, both because such individuals can be identified and because of the utilitarian consequences of said areas. I may accept Nabokov as a gifted writer based on the opinions of others, but I cannot regard his works as successes when they fail to appeal to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the fact that it took modern science to discover that he didn’t actually paint many of his supposed works would suggest that his students were indeed true masters?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the point? The concept of quality is completely meaningless without some kind of purpose. That’s why people often judge science to be of greater importance - because it has a well defined mission that it clearly meets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t you write this?</p>
<p>My last post may have been a tad confusing, so let me try again. There are two ways of evaluating success in the arts:</p>
<ol>
<li>The work has sensory or emotional appeal for me.</li>
<li>Those who have large amounts of experience with the arts view the work as a success.</li>
</ol>
<p>Nabokov fails to meet the first criterion [for me] but succeeds at the second. However, the second has neither utilitarian use nor emotional appeal and therefore means nothing to me.</p>
<p>Has anyone here read Jonah Lehrer’s book Proust was a Neuroscientist? It’s interesting to note how many scientific achievements were anticipated by works in the humanities.</p>