I'm fine now, please ignore this. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Amaril

2016-09-21, 01:35 PM

There's nothing I can tell you that would cause you to feel better right away because the situation is clearly a lot more complex than you just feeling depressed about some things. You don't exist in a vacuum.

What I will say is that who ever is telling you these things about your gender being destructive or your culture being parasitical, they do not have your best interests at heart. At best, they are fools. At worst, and this is the more probable factor, they are malefactors, trying to manipulate you through self-guilt, trying to control you by exclaiming that through the circumstances of your birth and factors over which you have zero control, you are a lesser human being. If you really want to feel better, remove yourself from these influences. These are toxic people who are telling you these things.

Don't feel bad about calling for help, we all need it from time to time.

No one is telling me this...well, I guess some of the writers I'm reading for school right now might be, because they don't have to say it to my face. That's the problem. I can't help but feel like the only reason no one ever tells me I should actually do something about the problems caused by my existence is because they're too scared, or too hypocritical, to look me in the eye and tell me flat-out that I should kill myself. In any case, even if I could remove myself from this environment without dropping out of college, which isn't an option, I'm not even sure I want to. I feel like what I'm seeing from here is the truth, and has been all along, and turning away from it would just mean I was too cowardly to look, and to act on it.

That is a sad, defeatist attitude. Man look, if you're not happy with your life, pick a goal and work toward it. And stop ragging on men as lesser beings. Go get yourself a big, impossible dream/goal that you will never in a thousand years be able to fulfill and spend the rest of your days working toward it.

When you're done feeling presumably straight white male guilt you'll be able to focus on working toward something more than feeling bad that the universe is a random, chaotic, completely unfair place.

Oh, trust me, I have dreams. I've got plenty of dreams. But isn't that part of the problem? Isn't the idea that we should have crazy dreams, that we deserve to have dreams, just another artifact of the oppressive system that props up people like me? People who aren't like me don't get told that they should have dreams. They get told to just shut up and be content with where they are. Why do I get to have dreams when they don't? Why do I get to have dreams when me pursuing those dreams would just mean trampling on other people who happened to be less lucky than me?

I'm well aware that the universe isn't fair, at least not on a personal scale. But isn't it the responsibility of every human being to strive to make it as fair as we can?

WindStruck

2016-09-21, 01:42 PM

EvilJames

2016-09-21, 01:50 PM

Emperor Ing

2016-09-21, 01:51 PM

No one is telling me this...well, I guess some of the writers I'm reading for school right now might be, because they don't have to say it to my face. That's the problem. I can't help but feel like the only reason no one ever tells me I should actually do something about the problems caused by my existence is because they're too scared, or too hypocritical, to look me in the eye and tell me flat-out that I should kill myself. In any case, even if I could remove myself from this environment without dropping out of college, which isn't an option, I'm not even sure I want to. I feel like what I'm seeing from here is the truth, and has been all along, and turning away from it would just mean I was too cowardly to look, and to act on it.

It is the responsibility of each and every human being to bring happiness to those around them. You have a responsibility to make the world a better place, even in the smallest of ways. But as the saying goes, if you want to master others, you first need to master yourself. How can you possibly expect to make others happy unless you, yourself are happy? It's like getting nutritional advice from an obese person. Therefore, first and foremost, you have a responsibility for own happiness.

I'm going to tell you something so unbelievable you'll probably dismiss it outright as ridiculousness and insanity. But if it is your goal to find a reason to continue to not only live, but to have a life that's worth living, then I urge you. Please. At the bare minimum, be curious about what i'm about to tell you.

It's not the truth. What you're reading in college is not the truth, and it never has been. These writers do not wish to inform you. They do not wish to improve your lot in life or help you in any way. These people who wrote this do not have your interests at heart, either directly or indirectly, and stand to only profit from people like you who internalize their message. In a nutshell, what they've done is informed you you have an imaginary disease called 'privilege.' A disease only they have the cure for. It's all so they can have power over you. Your Professors are not exempt from suspicion either, as they willingly push this literature onto students like you, knowing full well what it contains.

The only reason it seems like the truth is because these spin-doctors are well-practiced in the art of deception.

Draconi Redfir

2016-09-21, 01:53 PM

Being white, being male, being north-American, being cis/straight and being upper middle class DOES NOT MAKE YOU EVIL!

People need to understand this more. Have you ever actually DONE any of those things? have you oppressed people? enslaved people? treated people like ships? focused on nothing but destruction?

Most likely the answer is no to at least a majority of those. The actions of others are not the actions of yourself, you need to define yourself on what YOU do, not what people in the past do, or what other people alive today do.

Every culture has bad people, from Mongolian Khans, to Japanese tyrants, to african pirates, to europium dictators, to Mexican cartels, every basket has bad eggs. Just because "progressive" social justice warriors keep pointing at yours doesn't mean it's the only one.

Emperor Ing

2016-09-21, 01:57 PM

I don't know what to say.. it's not about goals. It's about the truth. You should check out Stefan Molyneux sometime.

Not an argument! *brohoof*

Ruslan

2016-09-21, 02:01 PM

I am part of a culture that has never contributed anything positive to humanity
You can make a choice to get out there and start contributing.

I have done nothing to deserve anything I have
Then get out there and do something.

what possible justification can I have for continuing to live?
That is entirely up to you. Your existence is what you make of it.

EvilJames

2016-09-21, 02:02 PM

Privilege is certainly a thing. The problem is not it's existence, the problem is that he feels guilty for it and there is simply never a reason to feel that way. There is nothing wrong with having it, just be aware that it colors your perceptions, just as the the lack of said privilege colors the perceptions of those who do not have it.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 02:07 PM

Ask yourself this then. How would removing yourself make the world more fair? Would not your friends and family be pained by the loss of you? Would it be fair for you to make them feel that pain? Removing yourself doesn't change anything about the fairness of the world, in fact to many it may make it feel even less fair. You are not responsible for the acts of others of your culture or your gender and I sincerely doubt that either generalization you made is fair.

The single most important philosophical question one can ask is, "What makes life worth living?"

Everyone gets to have dreams even people not like you, even if there is no support system for them to try and achieve them, even if the dream is so far away that it likely that it will never come true for them. Everyone still has them.
If you don't like that it's so hard for others to achieve those dreams when it's not conceptually hard for you, then maybe helping others achieve dreams is one of your dreams. And any step working towards that dream, would that not be a step towards making the world more fair?

I want to help make the world better. That's why I'm studying art. I believe that those born to privilege, like me, have more obligation than anyone else to work for the improvement of society, because they have the most power, and that means they can make more of a difference. But it starts to feel like no matter how much I do, it's never enough. Like I can never make up the debt I've incurred to all the people who have suffered to give me the comfort and power I enjoy--or, if I ever can, like it would require the complete sacrifice of my entire life to that cause, leaving no room for me to do anything just for myself. And I fear that because of my unconscious biases, I may be incapable of understanding how to help, that any effort I make will always be wrong somehow.

I guess it comes down to wishing someone could prove to me that I can live my life to be, on balance, more good than bad for the world, and that I can do it without giving up everything I want for myself. Obviously, no one can prove that. But not knowing it hurts.

It is the responsibility of each and every human being to bring happiness to those around them. You have a responsibility to make the world a better place, even in the smallest of ways. But as the saying goes, if you want to master others, you first need to master yourself. How can you possibly expect to make others happy unless you, yourself are happy? It's like getting nutritional advice from an obese person. Therefore, first and foremost, you have a responsibility for own happiness.

I'm going to tell you something so unbelievable you'll probably dismiss it outright as ridiculousness and insanity. But if it is your goal to find a reason to continue to not only live, but to have a life that's worth living, then I urge you. Please. At the bare minimum, be curious about what i'm about to tell you.

It's not the truth. What you're reading in college is not the truth, and it never has been. These writers do not wish to inform you. They do not wish to improve your lot in life or help you in any way. These people who wrote this do not have your interests at heart, either directly or indirectly, and stand to only profit from people like you who internalize their message. In a nutshell, what they've done is informed you you have an imaginary disease called 'privilege.' A disease only they have the cure for. It's all so they can have power over you. Your Professors are not exempt from suspicion either, as they willingly push this literature onto students like you, knowing full well what it contains.

The only reason it seems like the truth is because these spin-doctors are well-practiced in the art of deception.

I can't dismiss the fact that society affords unbalanced privilege to people like me at the expense of others--that would be denying my obligation to help fix the problem. The people closest to me, who I trust more than anyone else in the world, believe this. Even so, I know that that alone doesn't necessarily mean my existence is fundamentally unjust. I'm just terrified that the expense my privilege has incurred to others is so great that I can never pay it back, that I can never fulfill my responsibility to humanity. As long as that's not true, I have no problem. Today just happens to be one of the days I find myself really wondering.

Being white, being male, being north-American, being cis/straight and being upper middle class DOES NOT MAKE YOU EVIL!

People need to understand this more. Have you ever actually DONE any of those things? have you oppressed people? enslaved people? treated people like ships? focused on nothing but destruction?

Most likely the answer is no to at least a majority of those. The actions of others are not the actions of yourself, you need to define yourself on what YOU do, not what people in the past do, or what other people alive today do.

Every culture has bad people, from Mongolian Khans, to Japanese tyrants, to african pirates, to europium dictators, to Mexican cartels, every basket has bad eggs. Just because "progressive" social justice warriors keep pointing at yours doesn't mean it's the only one.

Well, honestly...yes. I have done many of these things. I've oppressed people, and possibly enslaved some: I consume goods produced by unfair and unjust labor practices, and enjoy social benefits that are given to me even though I deserve them less than others, because of the circumstances of my birth. None of us exist in a vacuum. Our actions affect people all around the world, even if we'll never meet or even see them. And my actions, in particular, oppress people much closer to me, even though I can't be aware of just how much they do so.

Every culture has its bad eggs, but they don't all start from a position of injustice; they're not all raised in a way that harms others. I have been. That's why my existence needs justification, when theirs doesn't.

Crow

2016-09-21, 02:08 PM

Social engineering. Feminism movements. Etc. You've been programmed to hate yourself.

But it's all a bunch of lies and BS. What hollywood and the media have done to our country is quite disgusting.

White people are by far not the first culture to have utilized slavery, and they certainly weren't the last holdouts either. The world is a much better place because of the philosophies, innovations, endeavors, and inventions of many white people.

And any good parents would literally "hand everything" to their children so they can succeed.

I don't know what to say.. it's not about goals. It's about the truth. You should check out Stefan Molyneux sometime.

This poster is absolutely right.

Furthermore; ask yourself this question: Are white people somehow special?

I know this sounds like a terrible question to ask; but look at world history. Nearly every culture in human history has done what europeans have done- but europeans were the first to exist with the conditions to allow themselves to do it on a global scale. This was for a number of reasons that they didn't even necessarily have any say in (For example, they were alone mostly spared the ravages of the Mongols, which knocked the chinese and arab world down a peg). What europeans have been able to achieve is really a result of trends and forces that put them in a position to do what they did, and they ran with it. Just like nearly any other culture would have done. The Ottomans attempted to spread their reach into Europe and beyond too; and were very oppressive- but nobody ever mentions them because we don't have Ottomans today.

White people aren't special. You should feel no special guilt for being one of them. You are as responsible for the current and historical state of affairs as you would be if you were any other color. Claiming that "white people" are responsible for the ills of history and the world is an incredibly racist sentiment, because it implies that white people are somehow special to have accomplished everything they have. Imagine if people spoke the way about black people, or hispanics, or gay people, the way they do about whites. They would be (rightly) ridiculed. Don't ever let somebody force you to take responsibility for actions in which you had no part, and don't feed into their racism. I mean, read your posts. What good person seeks to make somebody feel what you're feeling right now? It's evil, and it's destructive.

As a side note, something I did not expect during my adventures in africa, was how many people there looked at European colonization as a long term benefit. The colonial era was bad for several reasons, but it also laid down groundwork that became the foundation of much that the people living there would utilize when they became free nations. Education systems, public utilities and public works. I was speaking to one guy, and I asked him why the schools could be so bad in his country, while in the next country over, they were (relatively) good; and he said that his country never had the benefit of french colonization.

Razade

2016-09-21, 02:12 PM

I honestly can't tell if this is serious. Like, I'm 80% sure that this is Poe's Law in effect. If it isn't...don't check out Stefan Molyneux, guy's a dishonest fringe hack. There's plenty of other people out there you should listen to. Give a listen to Shoeonhead or Armored Skeptic or Logicked. They at least strive to be objective and upfront with their biases.

Draconi Redfir

2016-09-21, 02:13 PM

Telonius

2016-09-21, 02:15 PM

I'm sorry to demand attention like this, but I need to ask, and I need to hear answers from people who won't just blow sunshine in my face because they're my friends or relatives: what possible justification can I have for continuing to live?

None, but who said the world was just? Revel in it. If you don't like what you see, mold it to however you'd want it to be. It's not like anybody else wouldn't, given the opportunity.

The_Snark

2016-09-21, 02:19 PM

... honestly, I feel like you could maybe use a therapist, rather than sociological or political debate*. I obviously don't know you very well, or even at all beyond this thread, but you're couching these things in such absolute terms - has never contributed, irrevocably tainted, can never be aware much less resist it - and speaking as someone who suffers from chronic depression, that feels like a warning sign to me. If this is something that's regularly getting you down, as opposed to a disturbing ethical quandary you occasionally think about, please do consider it.

*which could not occur on this forum anyway, and I worry that discussing culture and sociology in any detail might be pushing it

And honestly, you don't know enough to make statements like that with absolute certainty. Nobody knows enough to make absolute statements like that; sociology, politics, and human nature are incredibly complicated and you can't predict it with 100% confidence. Failure is not a certainty. (Believe me, I know the feeling, and I know hearing this isn't convincing if your mood is on a downswing, but it's true.)

I've been told that it can be useful to draw a distinction between guilt and shame. Guilt is when you think you've done something wrong, and feel bad. Shame is when you think you are wrong, and deserve to feel bad. Guilt is painful, but it's useful as a reminder to do better next time. (Or, on a wider level, an incentive discouraging antisocial behavior like theft and murder.) Shame is never useful. It's what you get when guilt metastasizes and goes toxic. It's a fuzzy distinction sometimes, I know; doesn't guilt contain some element of thinking you deserve to feel bad? Ethically speaking, isn't there something to it? (Depends on your ethics, but it sounds like you'd say yes.) But it sometimes helps me to keep in mind that if I'm feeling bad it should be about something specific and not because I am generally horrible, and that if there's something specific then I should try to address it rather than wallowing.

I do hear what you're saying; society today has some serious issues and it's worth being aware of that. But self-loathing won't help, will in fact actively hinder any effort you might make to change that.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 02:20 PM

Welp. i can't help someone who doesn't want help. If you're so determined to beleive you're the scum of the earth, so be it. Better luck to everyone else, idk maybe suggest he take up volenttering at the local food bank or something.

If you haven't left yet, I'm sorry if I gave that impression; same to everyone else. It's not true--I already feel much better, after talking about it for a little bit. The thing that helps me when I get like this is to get out of my own head, to talk to people who might offer some conflicting views, no matter what they actually say. Venting to all of you has helped me snap out of it. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me, I really do appreciate it, and again, I'm sorry if I gave the impression of being ungrateful or was just annoying.

Leewei

2016-09-21, 02:24 PM

Social engineering. Feminism movements. Etc. You've been programmed to hate yourself.

This really crosses the politics line of the forums. Also, it's a grossly inaccurate view of Feminism and its goals. We would have to debate this further elsewhere.

Humanity, even with our big brains and technology, is essentially a big bunch of hairless apes. We have instincts and we have knowledge (nature and nurture). Don't judge yourself, your sex, or your species too harshly!

Point by point:
If one of the two human sexes only existed to destroy, the world would be an entirely different place. Science and art would be nowhere near what they are today. Our lives would be, as they were in the middle ages, nasty, and short. Did you know that violent crimes have been trending down for decades, now? The recent bad press we're seeing is because we finally have the tools to show what hasn't been reported for years.

Prejudice is certainly something everyone, everywhere has. It's part of our developmental process. Children who grow up only around people of a given appearance will be uncomfortable around others who seem different. The best you (or anyone) can do is to recognize your shortcomings, and to meet and talk to those you are uncomfortable around. After a little while, it will be very obvious that they're just folks, the same as you. You won't be cured, but you will be developing a great mindset to use when dealing with the world.

Deserving what you have is important, but there are a lot of people fooling themselves about exactly this sort of thing. Fixing the world into a place of perfect justice is a lost cause. Worse than this, history reflects very badly on people who try to radically fix the world.

It really sounds like you need to do something for yourself. Meet some of the people you don't normally see. Don't accept the rhetoric that you might hear about your value in the world. Ultimately, you do have the agency to earn your place and affect the world. This will take many years to do.

Do not set impossible goals. Think of the direction forward, then get there by steps. You know better than anyone what works for you. Think back to what you've done that really worked for you. That's the best thing to take up to move ahead.

Chen

2016-09-21, 02:25 PM

I'm well aware that the universe isn't fair, at least not on a personal scale. But isn't it the responsibility of every human being to strive to make it as fair as we can?

Fair is very vague. Do you mean in terms of equality? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? Both can have significant pros and cons. Realistically almost anyone who's going to see this post is WAY better off than SOME people in the world. Selling their computer and using the funds to help someone worse off than them would seem logical if the intent was to try and "even things out". Realistically this is absurd. There are some things that don't need to be equal. I don't have to care about a stranger as much as a care about my wife. There's no real onus on me to prioritize some random other person over myself or my loved ones. It is not owed to them. But that applies to everyone. If you want to help others and dedicate your entire life, all your resources, all your caring towards it, that is certainly something you can do. But realize it's not something you MUST do, in any moral sense.

Emperor Ing

2016-09-21, 02:27 PM

I can't dismiss the fact that society affords unbalanced privilege to people like me at the expense of others--that would be denying my obligation to help fix the problem. The people closest to me, who I trust more than anyone else in the world, believe this. Even so, I know that that alone doesn't necessarily mean my existence is fundamentally unjust. I'm just terrified that the expense my privilege has incurred to others is so great that I can never pay it back, that I can never fulfill my responsibility to humanity. As long as that's not true, I have no problem. Today just happens to be one of the days I find myself really wondering.

Some people do have more privilege than others. That's true.

The problem is that, as explained before, you've been told to believe that you should hate yourself because of it. A lot about what you have been told about privilege is at best, one-sided, and at worst, outright fabrication. For example, let's take your culture: You say it's developed nothing good in the world and has only been oppressive and destructive, right?

Your culture developed Republican government. Developed Greco-Roman values of individual rights and liberty. Invented philosophy. Invented the scientific method. Developed Germ Theory and modern medicine. Brought Industrialization to the world. Lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else in history, ever. Was the first civilization in history to end slavery as a matter of principle. Brought rights for women and allowed them equal protection under the law. Created revolutionary methods of transportation, including the steam locomotive, the automobile, and the airplane. Explored the globe. Landed a man on the moon. Invented the Internet.

Your culture isn't perfect, you can list many horrible things done, too, and you'd be accurate. But it's important to get both sides of the argument to realize that your culture isn't pure destruction. It's done many, truly magnificent, beautiful things that has uplifted the lives of countless billions of people throughout history.

Crow

2016-09-21, 02:39 PM

This really crosses the politics line of the forums. Also, it's a grossly inaccurate view of Feminism and its goals.

I don't think he's talking about egalitarian feminism; but "third wave" feminism, which a toxic minority of feminists have given a bad name in the eyes of many.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 02:41 PM

Okay, guys? I'd rather not be responsible for starting a war. Can you take this discussion somewhere else, or at least promise to keep it clean?

Eldariel

2016-09-21, 02:42 PM

You're defining yourself in terms of race and sex. Yet, when you delve inside yourself, you're not a combination of race/sex/gender/etc. but you're a person who happens to have those traits - define yourself as a person dissociated from those traits. You are your own person; you aren't responsible for the actions of your race, gender, sex, family or anyone else but yourself. That is in fact the culture you're living in; it would be different in Asia with the Confucian ideas of family responsibility and community before the individual, but that's not the culture you're living in apparently.

Thus, first of all, leave the shackles you've built for yourself. You're taking responsibilities that you have no right to carry. Being cis, being white, being male, whatever - just because it's the default value in your little corner of the world doesn't make it any less valuable. And seriously, Caucasians are no worse than any other race - lots of incredible music, art, huge leaps in science, etc. It's fully possible that we'd still be far from space travel if not for their cultural contributions. Certainly, every race has their atrocities and the history of humanity is very inhumane (because it more closely follows the rules of nature than ethics or morality) - that's just the way it is and there's no point carrying that baggage with you. The people who committed those atrocities are long gone and nobody is responsible for their legacy.

Then, work on a personal level to be the best you can be and make the world around yourself the way you want it to be. That's a goal. You won't succeed but every inch you move forward is a step for humanity. Nobody here gets anywhere alone; humans make the shifts happen as groups. They might be difficult to notice as the cause and the effect is hard to pinpoint and the change is gradual but throw your own effort into the wheels and you've carried your weight. At that point, you've done all that can be expected of you and thus you're free of responsibility.

People have responsibility in relation to their power. Only someone with absolute power could be required to make the world perfect. You don't have that power. Thus, you don't have that responsibility. You have the responsibility to use what you have wisely (but nobody is perfect; there are missteps and that's perfectly okay, errarum humanum est!) and that's about it.

Emperor Ing

2016-09-21, 02:45 PM

Okay, guys? I'd rather not be responsible for starting a war. Can you take this discussion somewhere else, or at least promise to keep it clean?

As you can imagine, this is a controversial topic. Even so, i'll do what I can to keep the discussion civil.

EvilJames

2016-09-21, 02:50 PM

It would depend on what culture you are from, but I'd be willing to bet that no matter which one it is, that it contributed quite a few things without oppression. I'm assuming American, so yeah there has been a lot of bad stuff and bad stuff continues to happen, but that doesn't undermine the good America has done and will do. (if not American well then say so and I'll find something)

The simple fact is, that there is no debt, you don't owe anybody anything. Wanting to make things better is both noble and commendable, but there is no score for you to even out. You giving up everything won't change the bad things of the past anymore than it makes good things for the future.

Razade

2016-09-21, 02:57 PM

I want to help make the world better. That's why I'm studying art.

Well now I know this isn't serious. if you really wanted to make the world a better place the last place, or maybe the second to last place, you should look is art. How about humanitarian stuff? Why not join the Peace Corp? Why not sacrifice the privilege you claim to have by going to places that don't.

This is all just a cry for attention or Poe's Law in full effect.

Okay, guys? I'd rather not be responsible for starting a war. Can you take this discussion somewhere else, or at least promise to keep it clean?

Oh. It's both. Alright.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 03:03 PM

Well now I know this isn't serious. if you really wanted to make the world a better place the last place, or maybe the second to last place, you should look is art. How about humanitarian stuff? Why not join the Peace Corp? Why not sacrifice the privilege you claim to have by going to places that don't.

This is all just a cry for attention or Poe's Law in full effect.

No, it was meant to be fully serious. And I take issue with your stance on art. Call me foolish if you want, but I believe art is (or at least can be) am extremely effective force in shaping culture, often for the better.

Lethologica

2016-09-21, 03:05 PM

The people whose negativity you're consuming are paid to pore over the flaws in the world. It's a skewed image. It doesn't mean the world is irredeemable. It just means the world is flawed. The world's injustice is not an underlying fundament that poisons all the great and good things people do; it's part of a tapestry that also includes great and good things and ideas and people.

But sure, the world is flawed. What are you going to do about it?

Culture isn't fair; history isn't fair. We notice this not to cast blame, but to understand what needs to be fixed. No one's culture, no one's history is spotless; we can only seek to use that knowledge to improve the future.

Biology isn't fair; psychology isn't fair. But we are not the paltry sum of our baser instincts. We learn of them to master them, not to doom ourselves to be ruled by them.

Life isn't fair. That doesn't mean we can't work to make life better, for ourselves and others.

Running away, by suicide or whatever other means, is a limp-wristed defeatist gesture at the world's flaws--and it increases the world's unkindness to the people around you. You say we're responsible for striving to make the world more fair--suicide makes it more unfair. You didn't get to choose to be alive, so whether it's "okay" has nothing to do with you. You can only choose to live or to die, and choosing to die is, on balance, not okay. Instead, choose to live your best life.

The world's tapestry has injustice and unkindness woven into it. It's not going to apologize to you for that. But you can decide to be just and to be kind, and that changes the tapestry for the better.

The world is an emergent property of how we treat each other. Be excellent to others, and you are creating a more excellent world.

Razade

2016-09-21, 03:11 PM

No, it was meant to be fully serious. And I take issue with your stance on art. Call me foolish if you want, but I believe art is (or at least can be) am extremely effective force in shaping culture, often for the better.

You can take issue with it all you want. You're focused on culture and not people. If you want to change a culture, you have to change people. If you want to change people, you have to do something with them. Not for them. Drawing a picture or sculpting a sculpture isn't helping a starving kid in Africa. Going and helping give out food is. The fact that any kind of talk about actually going out and helping people is scarce in your pity piece is telling.

If you want to rectify the mistakes you see in your culture, for what ever reason you see them, then going out and actualizing the change you want to be is the only way. You don't want to get your hands dirty. You wanna write do art. It's laughable. It's insulting honestly. "We're bad, we're evil all we do is destroy. What's that you say? Give out aid packages in less developed areas of the world? No no, here's a painting that shows my anguish over the years of systemic abuse the people with the same color of skin committed against you!" Give me a break.

Emperor Ing

2016-09-21, 03:13 PM

I'm standing by what I said before: You have to know you are in a toxic environment if the people in it and around it are all but telling you to kill yourself. You must remove yourself from this environment. How to remove yourself from the environment? You can transfer to a different school. Alternatively, you can change majors into something more technical. You don't need a college degree to be able to create art, after all.

Leewei

2016-09-21, 03:16 PM

Well now I know this isn't serious. if you really wanted to make the world a better place the last place, or maybe the second to last place, you should look is art.

I wouldn't dismiss art. Music in particular has been an incredibly effective factor in American racial integration. Our culture is largely defined by its art, and cultural values are reflected both in and from art.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 03:20 PM

Kid Jake

2016-09-21, 03:21 PM

No, it was meant to be fully serious. And I take issue with your stance on art. Call me foolish if you want, but I believe art is (or at least can be) am extremely effective force in shaping culture, often for the better.

Does art put food in the stomach of a starving child? Does it help save the leg of a 3rd world farmer with a nasty infection? Does it provide a place for a battered wife to seek shelter when her husband's decided he's done with her?

There are ways to actually make this world a significantly better place, at least for some, and sitting in your ivory tower pretending to influence it with your ideals isn't one of them.

Spiryt

2016-09-21, 03:28 PM

Okay, when I read that United damn States haven't contributed anything to humanity, I just...

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

I was expecting Moldavia, Eritrea, Kongo, maybe even Poland. :smalltongue:

I know that feeling down and guilty is difficult crap, but taking a big breath, and thinking about facts clearly should really help.

Leewei

2016-09-21, 03:30 PM

No, Razade is right. From the premises I started with, I'm absolutely a coward and a hypocrite. Understand, though, that what I was writing was coming from a moment of unusual self-doubt and negative emotion--most of it is completely opposite to what I actually believe, now that I'm calmer and able to be more rational.

If you still think I'm an awful person, well, I won't say you're wrong. I'm hardly good.

All right, I'll make this personal. I married an art teacher. She has spent years working at various creative arts schools serving minority immigrant communities. Art is a great subject to involve struggling kids who find it hard to follow most concepts in English. Art from the culture where these kids came from is a great way to involve parents who find that they can actually now contribute to the school and involve themselves in it.

Will art put food in a hungry kid's stomach? Our schools need to do that for the time being. What art will do, though, is allow more of these kids and their families to stay engaged in school, rather than becoming disaffected and growing up into broken adults.

Absolutely nobody is obligated to become an artist. If you have interest, though, there is definitely opportunity to do some good.

Razade

2016-09-21, 03:36 PM

Will art put food in a hungry kid's stomach?

Nope! You know what puts food in kid's stomachs? FOOD! Will art help cure totally cureable diseases? NOPE! You know what will? MEDICINE! I'm not dismissing art. I'm saying compared to humanitarian aid it's not as important. Art can be important even if there are things more important than it. Someone saying "I want to help people" and then turning around and saying "I'm going to get an art degree" is absurd. Get an engineering degree. Or a medical degree. Skip the degree, join up with the Peace Corp. Skip the Peace Corp. Find Aid Groups who accept volunteers and sign up.

Our schools need to do that for the time being. What art will do, though, is allow more of these kids and their families to stay engaged in school, rather than becoming disaffected and becoming broken adults.

We're talking about people who don't have schools. People who are actually under privileged and suffering. People who have it far worse than just not getting a meal in schools.

Leewei

2016-09-21, 03:42 PM

We're talking about people who don't have schools. People who are actually under privileged and suffering. People who have it far worse than just not getting a meal in schools.
There's good at home, and there's good abroad. I won't peg one above the other, but there are certainly people who are underprivileged and suffering close to your doorstep. The problems may indeed be far worse elsewhere in the world. That in no way means that those working nearby aren't making a difference, and art is part of that process.

I'd suggest volunteering somewhere for a bit - a food shelf, for instance. See if it suits you. Meet folks who are making a difference. When you're feeling lost, service to others is a great help to yourself.

factotum

2016-09-21, 03:49 PM

"I am of the sex with no biological purpose but destruction".

Er, what? Last time I checked both male and female were required to produce a baby, how is that destructive?

Razade

2016-09-21, 03:49 PM

There's good at home, and there's good abroad. I won't peg one above the other, but there are certainly people who are underprivileged and suffering close to your doorstep. The problems may indeed be far worse elsewhere in the world. That in no way means that those working nearby aren't making a difference, and art is part of that process.

I'd suggest volunteering somewhere for a bit - a food shelf, for instance. See if it suits you. Meet folks who are making a difference. When you're feeling lost, service to others is a great help to yourself.

I won't either. This isn't about me. This is about someone who is saying that their life is worthless because all it's done is take and hurt and exploit people. This isn't about doing a small bit of good, this is about doing as much good as you can. I'm sorry that art isn't as helpful as feeding people or giving them life giving medicine. Art's great, big fan. I'm also a big fan of practicality. What's more practical? Singing a song to a starving man or handing them a sandwich. Giving a freezing man a blanket or showing them how to draw a picture of fire.

"I am of the sex with no biological purpose but destruction".

Er, what? Last time I checked both male and female were required to produce a baby, how is that destructive?

Technically you can just freeze sperm and use it when you need it and some lunatics claim this makes men useless and obsolete. Look up Krista Millburn and her "Castration Day" thesis.

Lethologica

2016-09-21, 04:11 PM

I won't either. This isn't about me. This is about someone who is saying that their life is worthless because all it's done is take and hurt and exploit people. This isn't about doing a small bit of good, this is about doing as much good as you can. I'm sorry that art isn't as helpful as feeding people or giving them life giving medicine. Art's great, big fan. I'm also a big fan of practicality. What's more practical? Singing a song to a starving man or handing them a sandwich. Giving a freezing man a blanket or showing them how to draw a picture of fire.
You don't have to be the best person in the world by vocation to be someone who gives and heals and helps people. You're correct to say that wanting to do as much good as you can is not a good reason to choose art, by all means. But someone can choose art and still be serious about doing good.

Leewei

2016-09-21, 04:18 PM

... This is about someone who is saying that their life is worthless because all it's done is take and hurt and exploit people. This isn't about doing a small bit of good, this is about doing as much good as you can. I'm sorry that art isn't as helpful as feeding people or giving them life giving medicine.
What a person can develop into and do varies pretty greatly from one person to the next, does it not? If you're born an artist, do good with your art.

Art's great, big fan. I'm also a big fan of practicality. What's more practical? Singing a song to a starving man or handing them a sandwich. Giving a freezing man a blanket or showing them how to draw a picture of fire.
I'm also big on practicality. I'm a computer scientist. If I want to help a guy, I don't show him a .gif of a blanket. Let's give the artist a bit of credit for having a brain and using it well toward a lofty goal.

Eldariel

2016-09-21, 04:22 PM

Nope! You know what puts food in kid's stomachs? FOOD! Will art help cure totally cureable diseases? NOPE! You know what will? MEDICINE! I'm not dismissing art. I'm saying compared to humanitarian aid it's not as important. Art can be important even if there are things more important than it. Someone saying "I want to help people" and then turning around and saying "I'm going to get an art degree" is absurd. Get an engineering degree. Or a medical degree. Skip the degree, join up with the Peace Corp. Skip the Peace Corp. Find Aid Groups who accept volunteers and sign up.

That's only assuming individuals rather than the community is the relevant part. Innate in individualistic values but not so much in communitarian ones (Confucian countries again place stability and the good of the community ahead of the individual). Resources are limited. All resources put into saving the weak and innocent, who certainly don't deserve the fate they're suffering, are resources not put into furthering science, improving our own society and changing the culture, etc. That's not to say there's no value to it but certainly, it's a small scope action that is incapable of producing a global-level change, unlike the possibilities of art and science (I daresay European history would look much different without the Strauss brothers' compositions after the Prussian triumph - the whole atmosphere of the country changed). It's a way to feel good about oneself and to make a person comparatively much happier though.

Razade

2016-09-21, 04:35 PM

You don't have to be the best person in the world by vocation to be someone who gives and heals and helps people. You're correct to say that wanting to do as much good as you can is not a good reason to choose art, by all means. But someone can choose art and still be serious about doing good.

Yeah. I know. I've never said art can't help people. I'm arguing this one particular context. OP says he wants to help people and that's WHY he's picking art. As opposed to actually getting out and helping people.

Donnadogsoth

2016-09-21, 04:35 PM

I am part of a culture that has never contributed anything positive to humanity, unless it was on the backs of countless oppressed people, and has been engaged for all of its existence in a continuous campaign to erase everything beyond itself from the world.

I am of the sex with no biological purpose but destruction.

Every thought I might ever have is irrevocably tainted by unconscious hatred and prejudice that runs so deep I can never even be aware of its full extent, much less resist it.

I have done nothing to deserve anything I have; all of it has been given to me by an unjust system set up by people like me purely to advance themselves at the expense of everyone else.

I'm sorry to demand attention like this, but I need to ask, and I need to hear answers from people who won't just blow sunshine in my face because they're my friends or relatives: what possible justification can I have for continuing to live? How is my existence anything other than a curse on the world?

Calm down, the enemy is right here, inside your head. You are part of a conquering race destined to rule the Galaxy, continuing the work of Creation through the power of intellect, which separates us from the beasts of the field and the crawling things of the earth.

But, you were born into bondage. Your society's social capital has been substantially destroyed by the effects of a sharp triangle of shock, illogicality, and guilt. As this capital decreases, society becomes psychosocially dislocated and, so, increasingly vulnerable to momentarily pleasurable addictions as compensation mechanisms, including addictions to violence, sex, religion, gambling, drugs, shopping, Internet, and even the nihilistic pleasure in seeing society fall, like a cartoon character sawing off the very limb he sits on.

(1) Shock: Your society has been shaken and traumatised by repeated shocks to its integrity: the Titanic disaster, the World Wars, the assassination of proud and optimistic leaders such as John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the Vietnam War, and the terrorist strikes of 9/11. These shocks have never been fully recovered from, leaving us in a state of disorientation, making us insecure and vulnerable to injections of guilt and illogicality.

(2) Illogicality: Your education has been corrupted by the concept of anti-discrimination, where discrimination means “to tell the difference.” With this as an ethos, from sociology we move on to destroy logic itself, the principle of identity or A=A, and with that all principles are banned. Only ideology remains. Can you name a single principle you know from your schooling? Most likely you will not even know what a principle is. This is not your fault. The Universe operates in a principled manner, and it is the unique pleasure and mandate of man to discover them. Without principle, we operate blindly.

(3) Guilt: At every turn, Western achievements have been ignored, or its economic, political, cultural, religious, and moral wealth spat upon, with increasingly naked hatred and vainglorious envy. Take slavery as an example. The Catholic Church long opposed slavery, which in the modern era began in 1444, and it was the Christian West that finally abolished it, largely courtesy of the British Empire. But, is this towering and unparalleled moral achievement celebrated or even taught in schools? Hardly. A million deaths are not enough for the West to die.

You are being brow-beaten with a long, nubby rosewood club called guilt. And what is guilt? Fear of social death. They control you with your guilt. And your guilt works because you have love for your fellow men. Thus they kill you with your love.

Your love is meant to bless the world, and you cannot do that if you have no roots to the earth beneath you, to your family, to your nation, to the civilisation that produced the Internet, and the Apollo program and the Polio vaccine. Set aside the light little triangle—what a small thing it is, when finally removed, all white and thin and scalpel-sharp—and relieve yourself of the burden of shock, guilt, and illogicality. If you can do that, you can finally, freely look from the ugly duckling in the mirror to the constellation Cygnus.

EvilJames

2016-09-21, 04:50 PM

Razade

2016-09-21, 04:53 PM

Leewei

2016-09-21, 04:56 PM

I disagree with much of what Donnadogsoth says, but that gets very political, very fast.

Veering away from that as much as I can, let's talk about people, and talk about what is good.

People revere what they consider sacred. Their church, obviously, their country, their community, their family. The list can get big, but if you put yourself in someone's shoes, if you really listen to what makes them very happy (or hopping mad), it's the sacred stuff. Even atheists are all about the sacred. Yes, I know this makes no sense at all, but that's how everyone is wired.

So, let's presume for a moment that you have some great values. You know, because you've been brought up that way, that everything sacred is GOOD. You work for good in the world by following those values.

But wait. Something has made you actually question those values. You liked being who you were before, but that's all tangled up in values that now no longer make sense. What a mess! How can anyone be good? How can you win when the rules change like that?!

The good news is, it gets better. You'll figure it out and make your way. It may happen again, but it gets a lot easier to deal with. Perspective helps, humility helps, and especially action helps. As I and others have offered up, helping others is enormously healing. Find some way to do that. Also understand, that while those who have made you question your values may in fact have a very good point, they are by no means the ultimate authority on what is good, and they have been through what you're going through, and are very likely to do so again.

Kid Jake

2016-09-21, 05:23 PM

Delicious Taffy

2016-09-21, 05:26 PM

At times like this, I'm tempted to lapse into my alter ego of Doug Doue, a guy so vulgar and rude, he makes Filthy Frank seem like a proper gentleman. Doug would tell you to get out of your pity pool and cheer the f*** up, stop whining about how horrible you are just for existing, and probably call you some pejorative term typically aimed at homosexuals or black people. He'd break down your complaints point by point, angrily insisting that everything you're saying is a bunch of bull****, and that you're not required to go along with other people's views just because you're aware of them.

But, I'm keeping Doug Doue away from this website, because I actually respect the people here. So, you're going to get advice from me, as myself. Stop caring about what other people may be leading you to think. You're not the one who wronged those that came before you. You might be benefiting from a system built on oppression and unfairness, but you're not the one who built it. Your ancestors, for all we know, were some of the most horrible slave-drivers in the country, but you're not them. Your only connection with them is through coincidence, and you have the choice to be better than them. If you think the foundation you were born from is corrupt and unjust, do something to help fix it. You're just one person, so you can't singlehandedly fix everything wrong with the world, but you can do your best to improve the world around you. So many people see the entire problem and think "I can't do anything about all of this, it's too much," but that's the wrong way to look at it. The only responsibility you have is to do the best you, personally, are capable of doing. You're not accountable for anything but your own actions, so don't feel like you should be. If someone is telling you otherwise, cut them out of your life. If something you're reading has that message, stop reading that trash and read something worthwhile. Cut out the negativity and focus on the positives. What can you do to change things, even if it's just a few times over the course of your life? Probably plenty, if you try.

Just something to think about.

Razade

2016-09-21, 05:27 PM

So your response to "The world is full of suffering and I feel like I'm responsible" is "write a poem about it and hope someone else does something"?

Art certainly has its place, but if you want physical, tangible results you need physical, tangible action.

Naw man. Practicality is trumped by kind words and the things they make people do. The promise of food is worth more than actual food. Also screw those poor people. Their suffering is a fine enough cost for the improvement of science.

Ruslan

2016-09-21, 05:35 PM

We certainly could use more people doing kind deeds, and we could also use a few more poets inspiring those people. One does not exclude the other.

Bobbybobby99

2016-09-21, 06:31 PM

If you want to help people and do art simultaneously, be an art/whatever teacher that volunteers in their free time and donates a fair amount of their wages to charity (for ideal results, teach at an expensive private schools that pays a lot, and use the extra proceeds to buy goats)! Everybody wins!

On a more serious level, I do think that most people disregard the whole 'make money in an expensive job and donate craptons' option.

On an actually serious level, I'm glad that you've snapped out of the stuff in the first post; that was I don't have to spend a bunch of time and energy correcting everything :smallsmile:.

Winter_Wolf

2016-09-21, 06:34 PM

Speaking as someone who makes money from making art, going to school specifically for an art degree is suboptimal. By all means take classes, read, and practice your heart out. But get something like a business degree that can help you get your own business up and running.

But if you're going to let some crap propaganda make you doubt your right to exist, you probably don't have what it takes to deal with constant criticism that comes with making art.

Speaking to privilege, damn man being salty because you got a good break reflects really poorly on you and dishonors the gifts you've received and those who gave them to you. You didn't control the circumstances of your birth, and maybe you didn't ask for the good things in your life, but to turn around and take against crap on that doesn't make you a better person. Go talk to people who didn't get what you got and take as a burden. If they're honest, they'll tell you they'd happily trade you circumstances. You got good fortune; take it an use it to make the world better instead of moaning about it. Show a little gratitude.

lio45

2016-09-21, 07:25 PM

As a side note, something I did not expect during my adventures in africa, was how many people there looked at European colonization as a long term benefit. The colonial era was bad for several reasons, but it also laid down groundwork that became the foundation of much that the people living there would utilize when they became free nations. Education systems, public utilities and public works. I was speaking to one guy, and I asked him why the schools could be so bad in his country, while in the next country over, they were (relatively) good; and he said that his country never had the benefit of french colonization.

Heh. "Except for sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, public health and peace, what have the Romans ever done for us?!?"

MoonCat

2016-09-21, 07:32 PM

Hey man. It sounds like you're having a rough time, and I really am sorry. I'll try to address the points in just your OP and not any of the following posts as some of them, quite frankly, alarm me.

Your assessment that you are part of a privileged/oppressive group is an accurate one, and that does mean unfortunately, you will have implicit bias and that yes, you have benefited simply by being part of that. It will take sincere effort on your part to unlearn unconscious prejudices moving forward, and it is accurate that you do have an obligation to do so. Being aware that you have these privileges is a legitimate first step, and I commend you for it.

However, I think you have missed a key tenet regarding human rights. Namely, you have them too. You deserve to live. I do not know what you have been reading, but it sounds like it might be concerned with civil rights. Which I must emphasize, is about equality. You are worth just as much, deserve just as much, and fixing the the oppression that you recognize exists does not involve tearing you down.

You are right that you have benefited, and if you want to begin improving the world to make it better for those of us who have not, stay alive. Art is an incredible thing, and you can also make the world a better place by staying in it and learning. You can learn how to support others with less privilege, you can be an advocate, you can work on those biases. Your advantages are still tools that can help others. What I see from your posts is a compassionate person who wants to make things better. The world needs those.

I would love to talk more, but I recommend it be over PM. Feel free to contact me. You are going through a hard moment, and no one should do that alone. And you are worth so, so much.

thorgrim29

2016-09-21, 07:36 PM

I had a bigger thing written down but my browser ate it.... Anyway what it boils down to IMO is that anyone who tell you you should feel guilt and responsability for things you didn't do is trying to sell you something toxic that will end up with you giving them your time and money and self-respect in exchange for some ever fleeting and ever diminishing sense of absolution. By all means keep in mind other people's circumstances when judging them and if you want to and feel up to it try to make things better but you shouldn't be feeling that self-loathing that permeates your first post.

As to specifics... Even if your thing about the US were true it's not your fault, the men being designed for destruction thing is weird and kind of insulting, and white people aren't special about the unconcious prejudice thing (or about anything not related to melanin levels really...), that's an unfortunate part of the human condition, it would be great if we could be fully rid of it but we can't, groups in power do everything to convince themselves that they inherently deserve to be no matter the colour of their skin, what hangs or doesn't between their legs or their ideologies. It's a good idea to try and recognize those biases and ignore them when possible but I don't think you should beat yourself up too much over it.

Also the idea of white people as an homogenous bloc is very american and extremely stange to me given your country's (and also mine to a point) history with discrimination of non-WASP white immigrants but that's a whole other discussion

veti

2016-09-21, 07:37 PM

I am part of a culture that has never contributed anything positive to humanity, unless it was on the backs of countless oppressed people, and has been engaged for all of its existence in a continuous campaign to erase everything beyond itself from the world.

Okay, starting from this:

Please be specific. What is "your culture", what is "humanity", and how does anyone "contribute positively" to it? I'm sorry to seem nitpicky, but these questions are important. If you're thinking entirely in vague generalisations and attaching random labels to groups that exist in your mind solely because you haven't taken enough time to understand them more fully, then the underlying problem is that you're confused and bewildered and no wonder.

Depending on your answers to the above questions: would you consider the concept of "humanity" itself to be a positive contribution to humanity? Or the concept of "oppression"? There's a reasonable chance it was your culture that invented both of those things. In order to have the notion of "oppression", first you have to make the assumption that some things have "rights" of some sort that it is possible to abridge.

Why do things have rights? Well, unless you subscribe to a religious interpretation - in which case the same philosophy probably has answers for all your questions - the simplest answer is "because your culture says they do". Isn't that a "positive contribution" to humanity?

I am of the sex with no biological purpose but destruction.

"Biological purpose"? What the hey is that? "Biology" doesn't have a plan, therefore its products don't have a purpose - they have a niche that they fill. The "reason" you exist is that you fill a niche. If you didn't, you wouldn't. It may not be a very impressive niche, you may not like it, and in that case you can - eventually - find yourself a better one, but that's a long-term project.

Every thought I might ever have is irrevocably tainted by unconscious hatred and prejudice that runs so deep I can never even be aware of its full extent, much less resist it.

Err... okay. "Every thought you might ever have" is shaped by everything that you've ever seen, felt, heard, read, tasted, endured, smelled, thought, dreamed or fantasised. Yes, of course there are negative influences in there, but to argue that those "irrevocably taint" your thoughts is to miss the point spectacularly. You live in the real world, and negative feelings are a necessary part of understanding that world.

I have done nothing to deserve anything I have; all of it has been given to me by an unjust system set up by people like me purely to advance themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Leaving aside notions of "deserve" and "unjust" - which, again, lean on concepts invented by the very system you're so comprehensively condemning - the notion that people set up a system "purely to advance themselves at the expense of everyone else" is selling your ancestors short spectacularly. The world today is a far, far better place than it was in any previous generation - globally speaking, and proportional to the population, there is less poverty, less war, less starvation and disease today than there has ever been in human history - and that's due, in no small part, to the efforts of tens of thousands of our ancestors who argued, worked, struggled and fought to make it so. Not "purely to advance themselves", but because they earnestly believed the world should and could be a better place than as they found it. And they were right.

I'm sorry to demand attention like this, but I need to ask, and I need to hear answers from people who won't just blow sunshine in my face because they're my friends or relatives: what possible justification can I have for continuing to live? How is my existence anything other than a curse on the world?

As they used to say, "what use is a newborn baby?"

Think of someone you admire. There must be someone who's done something worthwhile. (If not, then humanity as a whole is contemptible and you needn't feel bad for being a blight on it.) Now consider that it's very likely that they once - as a teenager, maybe - went through an emotional thought process similar to what you're going through now.

It's up to you to find purpose in your life. I would recommend distrusting anyone who tries to give that to you, or tell you what that should be - there is no shortage of such people, by the sounds of it you've already hung out with some of them and they've led you to where you're at now, which I have no difficulty in asserting is not a good place. You decide what you can contribute. Then do it.

Good luck.

A.A.King

2016-09-21, 07:54 PM

This entire thing is very odd. Even the first question is odd: "Why is it okay for me to be alive?" you would expect the question to be "Is it okay for me to be alive" but instead it is "Why is okay", you seem to already have accepted that is okay to be alive

On a similar note: "Why wasn't I surprised to find out you study art?"

Back on topic:
Consider this: Maybe it isn't? Maybe, if you think it okay to lump together entire groups of people based on their sex and label them as having 'no purpose', it isn't okay? Maybe, if you think it is okay to say a culture NEVER contributed ANYTHING, it isn't okay? Maybe, if you have such a cynical view of 'the system' and of other people you never met and never will, it isn't? I'm just asking some other relevant questions here.

Unlike some people in this thread I consider it wrong to make gross assumptions on what someelse experienced in life or what might go on in someone's head based on nothing but their appearance, but maybe I'm just modern. I guess to have such thoughts of acceptance you have to be a human from earth rather than.. something else.

Consider this: No-one deserves to live. We're all just random people, randomly selected for the sake of randomness. There is no purpose, no meaning, no grand scheme. We just are, and that's all folks.

More importantly: Nobody deserves to be dead either. There may not be any reason for you to be alive, but there is even less reason for you to just stop being alive. So just find something constructive to do and move on with your life.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 08:07 PM

EvilJames

2016-09-21, 11:15 PM

I also take issue with the idea that art is useless. No artist thinks painting a picture or singing a song to a disadvantaged, starving or poor person makes it better. I sincerely hope that you don't think that's what the intent is. It's possibly the most intellectually dishonest thing I've read today. Will it put food in the stomach of a starving child? Obviously not. You know what will? The thousands of people that are inspired by the art to take action that they otherwise would not have. Music and song help people persevere when things get tough. Your dismissal of art is fairly ignorant of what it does and has done.

Since no one is arguing that, I think you're safe.

I won't either. This isn't about me. This is about someone who is saying that their life is worthless because all it's done is take and hurt and exploit people. This isn't about doing a small bit of good, this is about doing as much good as you can. I'm sorry that art isn't as helpful as feeding people or giving them life giving medicine. Art's great, big fan. I'm also a big fan of practicality. What's more practical? Singing a song to a starving man or handing them a sandwich. Giving a freezing man a blanket or showing them how to draw a picture of fire.

Since that's what you said I would say yes, someone is apparently arguing that.

So your response to "The world is full of suffering and I feel like I'm responsible" is "write a poem about it and hope someone else does something"?

Art certainly has its place, but if you want physical, tangible results you need physical, tangible action.

Wanting to do art to try and make the world better is not the same not wanting to do anything but art to make the world better.

At any rate, he says he fine now.

Razade

2016-09-21, 11:25 PM

Since that's what you said I would say yes, someone is apparently arguing that.

You're free to strawman me as you wish. I've acknowledged that art isn't meaningless. Saying something is more important doesn't mean others things aren't important. I shouldn't have to explain this.

georgie_leech

2016-09-21, 11:27 PM

Alright, this thread got a lot of response, too much for me to practically respond to all of it in a timely fashion, but I want to reiterate to everyone that I'm okay now. I hope you can find it in your hearts not to take my first few posts too seriously--they were written from a moment of intense negative emotion, and don't represent how I normally feel or what I honestly believe (I have a shameful tendency to catastrophize everything when I'm upset, and make sweeping generalizations just to make myself feel worse). I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to me, and I feel like every response was helpful in some way. I'm going to change the thread title to indicate that the problem is gone. Thank you all again.

Just something to mention, Catastrophic thinking is very much a negative bias and unjustified, which you recognise, but being ashamed of it doesn't help change anything. You developed that habit in response to the events of your life, and it likely arose as some sort of defense mechanism which then spiraled out of control. I know my catastrophizing grew out of a notion that if I could plan for all possible negative outcomes, I could better control my life.

Trouble is, as you get older you realise that there are so many ways things can go wrong that you can't possibly prepare for everything. So you stop worrying about the little ways things can go wrong, and focus on worst things. After all, if you can prepare for the worst you can probably handle the stuff that's better than that, right? But as you think like that, you do what everyone does as you practice an activity (thinking of the worst): you get better at it. I got better and better at focusing on problems and imagining ways things could go wrong, and my skill at that far outstripped my ability to come up with solutions. It got to the point where I would paralyze myself for thinking of ways things could go wrong, and not being able to imagine how I could possibly handle it all. And even after I realised what I was doing, trying to not think of catastrophes just made me feel like I wasn't doing what I was supposed to. After all, didn't I have a responsibility to try and avoid disasters, and make things better? How can I do that if I don't try to fix problems? How can I fix problems if I don't look for them?

My catastrophizing grew out of a very human desire to find solutions to problems, be prepared, and make the world a better place. That's nothing to be ashamed of. You don't need to be ashamed of the darker parts of your psyche to find a better way. It takes way more effort than I'd prefer, but it works better than trying to shame yourself into being a better person.

Amaril

2016-09-21, 11:41 PM

Just something to mention, Catastrophic thinking is very much a negative bias and unjustified, which you recognise, but being ashamed of it doesn't help change anything. You developed that habit in response to the events of your life, and it likely arose as some sort of defense mechanism which then spiraled out of control. I know my catastrophizing grew out of a notion that if I could plan for all possible negative outcomes, I could better control my life.

Trouble is, as you get older you realise that there are so many ways things can go wrong that you can't possibly prepare for everything. So you stop worrying about the little ways things can go wrong, and focus on worst things. After all, if you can prepare for the worst you can probably handle the stuff that's better than that, right? But as you think like that, you do what everyone does as you practice an activity (thinking of the worst): you get better at it. I got better and better at focusing on problems and imagining ways things could go wrong, and my skill at that far outstripped my ability to come up with solutions. It got to the point where I would paralyze myself for thinking of ways things could go wrong, and not being able to imagine how I could possibly handle it all. And even after I realised what I was doing, trying to not think of catastrophes just made me feel like I wasn't doing what I was supposed to. After all, didn't I have a responsibility to try and avoid disasters, and make things better? How can I do that if I don't try to fix problems? How can I fix problems if I don't look for them?

My catastrophizing grew out of a very human desire to find solutions to problems, be prepared, and make the world a better place. That's nothing to be ashamed of. You don't need to be ashamed of the darker parts of your psyche to find a better way. It takes way more effort than I'd prefer, but it works better than trying to shame yourself into being a better person.

That's a really good way of putting that. Thank you. Rest assured, that tendency of mine is something I've been working on improving for a long time--I'm definitely better about it now than I used to be. It's just a process, like anything else.

Kid Jake

2016-09-22, 12:22 AM

Wanting to do art to try and make the world better is not the same not wanting to do anything but art to make the world better.

It's also not the same as doing something to make the world better.

Sure, there's that one in a million photograph, or story or freestyle interpretive dance that opens somebody's eyes and makes them realize that they need to get out there and make a difference. But there's also the 999,999 erotic paintings of clowns or poems about how daddy didn't love you enough that barely inspires a half-hearted thumbs up on Facebook before being immediately forgotten.

Deep down, everybody feels that little spark of artistry inside them. Occasionally that spark might rage to life and light a fire under somebody that needs it. More often than not though, that little spark gets seen by a handful of people and is eventually hung up in an out of the way guest bathroom so that its new owner can say "Oh yeah, I loved your gift...so thoughtful. I hung it on the wall."

So in the real world, you don't focus on the long odds when you want to get something done. If your tire goes flat, you change it; you don't throw positive energy into the universe until it re-inflates itself. A friend falls on hard times and can't afford groceries, you give him $100 so he can eat; don't promise him a million just as soon as you hit that jackpot. And if you want to see the world as something besides a gurgling cesspool one day, then you go out there and clean it up; don't just hope that you someday inspire like, just SO many other people to go do it instead.

You think I'm ignorant of the impact that art can have on society and that's fine. If you think that the average joe's good intentions and self expression have even a fraction of the weight of getting off your ass and applying elbow grease then I believe that you're laughably naive.

WindStruck

2016-09-22, 07:10 AM

If someone wants to create art, let them be. After all, one should be happy living their life, even striving to make others happy, but not be a slave to altruistic utilitarianism.

EvilJames

2016-09-22, 07:53 AM

You're free to strawman me as you wish. I've acknowledged that art isn't meaningless. Saying something is more important doesn't mean others things aren't important. I shouldn't have to explain this.
I just responded to your direct quote. If I misinterpreted something then I apologize.

It's also not the same as doing something to make the world better.

Sure, there's that one in a million photograph, or story or freestyle interpretive dance that opens somebody's eyes and makes them realize that they need to get out there and make a difference. But there's also the 999,999 erotic paintings of clowns or poems about how daddy didn't love you enough that barely inspires a half-hearted thumbs up on Facebook before being immediately forgotten.

Deep down, everybody feels that little spark of artistry inside them. Occasionally that spark might rage to life and light a fire under somebody that needs it. More often than not though, that little spark gets seen by a handful of people and is eventually hung up in an out of the way guest bathroom so that its new owner can say "Oh yeah, I loved your gift...so thoughtful. I hung it on the wall."

So in the real world, you don't focus on the long odds when you want to get something done. If your tire goes flat, you change it; you don't throw positive energy into the universe until it re-inflates itself. A friend falls on hard times and can't afford groceries, you give him $100 so he can eat; don't promise him a million just as soon as you hit that jackpot. And if you want to see the world as something besides a gurgling cesspool one day, then you go out there and clean it up; don't just hope that you someday inspire like, just SO many other people to go do it instead.

You think I'm ignorant of the impact that art can have on society and that's fine. If you think that the average joe's good intentions and self expression have even a fraction of the weight of getting off your ass and applying elbow grease then I believe that you're laughably naive.
Again your analogy fails because no one is saying that he shouldn't try to help people directly. Hell his existential crisis stems from him feeling like he's not doing enough. I do think you are ignorant of art's impact but your naivety isn't funny.

georgie_leech

2016-09-22, 08:02 AM

I just responded to your direct quote. If I misinterpreted something then I apologize.

Again your analogy fails because no one is saying that he shouldn't try to help people directly. Hell his existential crisis stems from him feeling like he's not doing enough. I do think you are ignorant of art's impact but your naivety isn't funny.

I don't think people are arguing that he should stop doing art entirely. Or at least, they shouldn't be. But there is something to be said for taking immediate, direct action. It's something that can help everybody: when depression or anxiety or other runaway thoughts are making life difficult, do something to work directly against the feeling. Reinforce the destructive thoughts as wrong. For me, it was usually doing something social, as a way to combat feeling alone and like nobody wanted me around. To combat feeling like you never do anything to help, do something with an immediate impact. You know, volunteer at a soup kitchen, or something. Something that you can mentally point to and go, 'see? That person is doing just a little bit better because I helped.'

Again, not to argue that art is bad. We could use more art and culture in the world. It's worth considering though if an immediate action with immediate payoff wouldn't feel better than a small impact spread over a large number of people.

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 08:05 AM

Murk

2016-09-22, 08:54 AM

To those saying art is pointless and doesn't help anyone: would it surprise you to learn that if it weren't for art I would probably be dead? You have to consider the possibility not just that it will put food in people's mouths or treat their illnesses (news flash, that's not what art is for), but also that it will inspire people, not just to save other people but also to save themselves. If an artist who could be inspiring other people to make a real, multi-person effort to save lives, and who could be sending messages of hope that spare people from depression and suicide, instead chooses to spend all his time and effort attempting to solve things personally and ends up saving about two people, he is behaving highly inefficiently, however much of a cop-out you may think it is to inspire other people to help.

I don't think anyone here is saying all art is completely pointless - just a lot of it.
Back when I was in high school, it was all the rage for teenage girls to write poems. They all did it - multiple poems a day. They all read each others poems. I say "read", but it was more like "glossed over". The only reason they even glanced at the poems of others was so others would glance at their poems too. None of them were actually interested in the poems.
I saw hundreds of pages of poems pass by. I'm not exaggerating here: hundreds. Writing those hundreds of pages helped the writers, sure, but no one else. Most of them got shared, ignored, and then discarded.

So, of course you are right. Of course there's a lot of art that inspires, helps, motivates, comforts, et cetera et cetera.
There's also a lot of rubbish art, though, that disappears in the eternal pit of No Effect.

So it is something to take into consideration. Not all medical students find a cure for cancer. Not all politicians prevent wars. Not all artists inspire people. It is a good thing to try, but it is also good to keep a close eye on whether or not you are effective. Don't assume something is useful "just because it is art". Some art is useless, and recognising whether or not your art is useless is always handy.
(You're even allowed to make useless art. There's nothing wrong with useless art, as long as you realise it is.)

factotum

2016-09-22, 10:43 AM

Writing those hundreds of pages helped the writers, sure, but no one else.
.
.
.
There's also a lot of rubbish art, though, that disappears in the eternal pit of No Effect.

If it helped the writer then it didn't have No Effect, did it? Helping oneself is the first step to getting into a position where you can help other people.

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 11:09 AM

I don't think anyone here is saying all art is completely pointless - just a lot of it.

Of course a lot of it is going to be less useful than some other pursuits you could be taking, but then taking the jump to statements like "If you really wanted to make the world a better place, then the last place, or maybe the second to last, you should look is art" and "Drawing a picture or sculpting a sculpture isn't helping a starving kid in Africa." (not "Probably isn't", not "Isn't directly", just "Isn't") and "You don't want to get your hands dirty. You wanna write do art. It's laughable. It's insulting honestly. "We're bad, we're evil all we do is destroy. What's that you say? Give out aid packages in less developed areas of the world? No no, here's a painting that shows my anguish over the years of systemic abuse the people with the same color of skin committed against you!" Give me a break." is intellectually dishonest. Or should I say, it's insulting, honestly. (I would say it was laughable, if there were anything remotely amusing about being antagonistic and crushing people's spirit for the sheer hell of it, all while having the brazen temerity to do so while being demonstrably incorrect. [Also, I would point out that a lot of systemic abuse has been perpetrated against me by people with the same colour of skin, because I'm a transgender woman, but that bit of spurious ridiculing of something which is entirely sensible is, while perhaps emblematic of Razade's style of debate, largely irrelevant to the topic of art, but bears mentioning anyway.])

Incidentally, saying "It's also not the same as doing something to make the world better." is also, well, wrong, given that... well, let's just say that whether the world would be better if I had killed myself is a contentious issue, if you feel the same way about everyone who has ever been saved by art then I officially do not want to know you.

Obviously, there are the artworks that never even see the sun, and there are the doodlings, shoot-em-up video games, because-I-can photographs and pop music about how many girls you've had sex with this week that I would actually argue aren't even artworks at all. I'm not disputing that these exist. I'm disputing that you take the leap from "These exist" to "These are the kind of works that someone is usually talking about when they want to deal with inspiring, professional art."

Ruslan

2016-09-22, 11:45 AM

I don't think anyone here is saying all art is completely pointless - just a lot of it.
Back when I was in high school, it was all the rage for teenage girls to write poems. They all did it - multiple poems a day. They all read each others poems. I say "read", but it was more like "glossed over". The only reason they even glanced at the poems of others was so others would glance at their poems too. None of them were actually interested in the poems.
I saw hundreds of pages of poems pass by. I'm not exaggerating here: hundreds. Writing those hundreds of pages helped the writers, sure, but no one else. Most of them got shared, ignored, and then discarded.

So, of course you are right. Of course there's a lot of art that inspires, helps, motivates, comforts, et cetera et cetera.
There's also a lot of rubbish art, though, that disappears in the eternal pit of No Effect.

So it is something to take into consideration. Not all medical students find a cure for cancer. Not all politicians prevent wars. Not all artists inspire people. It is a good thing to try, but it is also good to keep a close eye on whether or not you are effective. Don't assume something is useful "just because it is art". Some art is useless, and recognising whether or not your art is useless is always handy.
(You're even allowed to make useless art. There's nothing wrong with useless art, as long as you realise it is.)
I find it ironic that on a D&D forum, someone would take the time to explain to us - in painstaking detail, no less - how a simple human activity of interaction over fiction is pointless. Of course, I do understand where you're coming from. It's only pointless when someone else does it. On an unrelated note, how did your latest game of ... what is it that you kids play when you pretend to be Elves? Anyway, how did that one go? Had fun?

I saw hundreds of pages of poems character sheets pass by. I'm not exaggerating here: hundreds.

Lethologica

2016-09-22, 11:48 AM

I find it ironic that on a D&D forum, someone would take the time to explain to us - in painstaking detail, no less - how a simple human activity of interaction over fiction is pointless. Of course, I do understand where you're coming from. It's only pointless when someone else does it. On an unrelated note, how did your latest game of ... what is it that you kids play when you pretend to be Elves? Anyway, how did that one go? Had fun?
I'm guessing Murk considers it equally pointless. This is, of course, glossing over the way such devices enable introspection, grease social interaction, and build friendships, but of course we all know Maslow's hierarchy of need only has one layer.

Amaril

2016-09-22, 12:16 PM

Basic biological necessities aren't the only things people need to be happy. Even those in the darkest circumstances can have their spirits lifted by engaging with art. It can give them the will to go on, and maybe even help them learn things that they can use to make improvements in their lives. And one work of art can do this for lots of people, possibly more than the artist could ever personally meet. I acknowledge that it's hardly the most reliable way of making a difference, and I agree that people who focus on it can do even more by adding personal humanitarian work, like volunteering. But I believe that when art does achieve its potential, it can be the most powerful force for good in the world. And since it's also where my talents lie, and what I enjoy doing, I want to use it for good as much as I can.

Murk

2016-09-22, 12:42 PM

I'm guessing Murk considers it equally pointless. This is, of course, glossing over the way such devices enable introspection, grease social interaction, and build friendships, but of course we all know Maslow's hierarchy of need only has one layer.

Quite indeed. Since the three posts above you all had the same commentary ("enjoying it" is useful too), I'll just address yours.
I thought the discussion that was going on was talking about a societal, broad, large scale, interpersonal use. That's why there was talk about "going out there and doing stuff" and "inspiring other people" and things like that.
Maybe my perspective on the discussion before my post was wrong, but I didn't know personal enjoyment was something you were talking about.

Sure, if you enjoy it, good! Enjoy it!

Obviously, there are the artworks that never even see the sun, and there are the doodlings, shoot-em-up video games, because-I-can photographs and pop music about how many girls you've had sex ith this week that I would actually argue aren't even artworks at all. I'm not disputing that these exist. I'm disputing that you take the leap from "These exist" to "These are the kind of works that someone is usually talking about when they want to deal with inspiring, professional art."

Fair enough.

Lethologica

2016-09-22, 01:12 PM

Maybe my perspective on the discussion before my post was wrong, but I didn't know personal enjoyment was something you were talking about.
It isn't. Unless you define 'personal enjoyment' as literally anything that improves the readers' and writer's mental state.

And many useful things can be written off as a waste of time if expressed as high schoolers doing it in their spare time to share with each other. What meaning is that judgment supposed to have?

Ruslan

2016-09-22, 01:29 PM

A.A.King

2016-09-22, 01:52 PM

Murk, the girls you're talking about created a network for them to socialize and make not only themselves, but each other, feel better by sharing something. The poetry that was shared was of low quality, yes, but this is not the critical aspect here. The fact is was shared and people bonded over it is. This is clearly more than personal, this is societal and interpersonal. Frankly, I'm floored that you can't see it, while being so close to the subject. A community has been built (no matter how short-lived), and you just dismiss it.

If we are going to set the bar so low as "creating a network" then i guess crime is also a good thing. It is really something that the gangs in my city have been able to bomd over. Crime is certainly one of those things which allows you to feel better if you do it as part of group, and there communities all over the world build around this single concept.

Everybody is saying "art is good because it inspires". Do we know who or how or even if it will inspire? No, but some art somewhere will inspire someone (probably). I guess that is something, but to me that is not enough especially since the half of the art community that isn't just creating art is looking at art to find a reason to be inspired. It's a little bit like fortune telling, the only reason we can find things that Nostradamus "predicted" is because thousands of people have been desperately searching for things he may have predicted. We find art that inspired people because people are told to look for inspiration in art. In nobody was told that art inspires, it wouldn't because it doesn't.

If you want to do "art" then by all means do art, I won't stop you. Just don't delude yourself that your actually contributing or making a difference and more importantly don't do it on my dime. All you're actually doing is having a good time, it's your very own cheaper version of going to Las Vegas (but with a lower chance of actually striking it rich). Though like I said, as long as you're not actually harming someone you can do what you want.

Razade

2016-09-22, 01:57 PM

I just responded to your direct quote. If I misinterpreted something then I apologize.

I'm sorry that art isn't as helpful as feeding people or giving them life giving medicine. Art's great, big fan.

I find it off that if you were really responding directly to me you missed this. Isn't as =/= Isn't. As is the qualifier. Exercise is good. But it isn't as good as proper diet when you want to lose weight. Two pieces of chocolate is good. Two pieces of chocolate isn't as good as three pieces of chocolate if you like that sort of thing. Art isn't useless. It's just not as useful to people as feeding them when they're starving.

Ruslan

2016-09-22, 02:03 PM

If we are going to set the bar so low as "creating a network" then i guess crime is also a good thing.
....

If you want to do "art" then by all means do art, I won't stop you. Just don't delude yourself that your actually contributing or making a difference
If you want to post nonsense on this forum, then by all means post nonsense, I won't stop you. Just don't delude yourself that you're actually contributing or making a difference, or even being read, because this forum has a handy 'ignore user' function.

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 02:04 PM

Everybody is saying "art is good because it inspires". Do we know who or how or even if it will inspire? No, but some art somewhere will inspire someone (probably). I guess that is something, but to me that is not enough

"This technology will improve lives!"
"Do we know whose lives it's going to improve?"
"Well, no, I don't personally know everyone..."
"Are we sure that it will improve anyone's life at all?"
"Well, I suppose that it's technically possible that it won't improve anyone's life, but..."
"Well, then, it's not good enough! I want an exact report on which individual people this new invention is going to help and in what ways before I'm going to fund it. Get on it."

Why apply this illogic to art?

A.A.King

2016-09-22, 02:16 PM

"This technology will improve lives!"
"Do we know whose lives it's going to improve?"
"Well, no, I don't personally know everyone..."
"Are we sure that it will improve anyone's life at all?"
"Well, I suppose that it's technically possible that it won't improve anyone's life, but..."
"Well, then, it's not good enough! I want an exact report on which individual people this new invention is going to help and in what ways before I'm going to fund it. Get on it."

Why apply this illogic to art?

You're absolutely right, I never considered the fact that when a new cure has been found, nobody knows exactly which disease it curea, we just hand it out as "a cure" and hope for the best.
Similarly with technology, the fact that machines have very limited capabilities somehow never translate into people being able to make educated guesses as to how lives may be imporved.

When the lightbulb was invented all we could really that it would probably inspire someone, maybe.

Just because with technology we can't be completely exact about which specific individual lives will improve doesn't immediatly mean we don't know anything. If you really can't spot the difference betweem how we can see that technology will imprve lives versus how we imagine art might improve a live than that is just all the more reason to stop thinking about art and start learning about science.

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 02:24 PM

You're absolutely right, I never considered the fact that when a new cure has been found, nobody knows exactly which disease it curea, we just hand it out as "a cure" and hope for the best.
Similarly with technology, the fact that machines have very limited capabilities somehow never translate into people being able to make educated guesses as to how lives may be imporved.

When the lightbulb was invented all we could really that it would probably inspire someone, maybe.

Just because with technology we can't be completely exact about which specific individual lives will improve doesn't immediatly mean we don't know anything. If you really can't spot the difference betweem how we can see that technology will imprve lives versus how we imagine art might improve a live than that is just all the more reason to stop thinking about art and start learning about science.

You're absolutely right, I never considered the fact that when we make art, we hope people will draw some message from it. No-one knows exactly what the intended message is, we just hand it out as "A message" and hope for the best. Similarly with writing, the fact that language has a very limited range of possible meanings somehow never translates into people being able to make educated guesses as to how society may be improved.

When the artwork that saved my life was invented, all we could really be sure of was that it would probably inspire someone, maybe.

Just because with art we can't be completely exact about which specific individual lives will improve doesn't immediately mean we don't know anything. If you really can't spot the similarities between how some art will improve lives and some won't, and how some technology improves lives and some won't, then that is just all the more reason to think about both art and science.

See how annoying it is? If you're going to be condescending, at least do me the personal favour of being correct first.

Ruslan

2016-09-22, 02:29 PM

This conversation, in fact this entire website and all conversations on it, only exists thanks to a few stick figure drawings Rich Burlew drew to show his friends.
Sure, it grew into a burgeoning webcomic that now supports Rich's livelihood and provides enjoyment for thousands, but he didn't know it then. Back then, he was basically scribbling stuff for fun, ie. engaging in a kind of activity people like Murk and A.A.King would label as useless.

And now that it was established we're having this conversation on a web forum that only exists because a guy drew a few stick figures for his friends, please, tell me some more about how sharing small works of art with your friends is useless. I am keenly awaiting your incisive logical analysis. That you will post on a forum that only exists because a guy drew a few stick figures for his friends.

Chen

2016-09-22, 02:32 PM

Before everyone continues to go on weird tangents related to art being useful or not, can we look at the context that brought this up to begin with?

I want to help make the world better. That's why I'm studying art. I believe that those born to privilege, like me, have more obligation than anyone else to work for the improvement of society, because they have the most power, and that means they can make more of a difference. But it starts to feel like no matter how much I do, it's never enough.

If it had stopped at the second sentence its fine. You can make the world better with art. But then you follow-up with having more power, making more of a difference and then with but no matter what I do it's never enough. Thing is, while art CAN improve the world, it's very unlikely to be what cures the inequalities and unfairness that was also mentioned in society. People are arguing art is less effective at doing these things and they are 100% right in that regard. I don't think anyone is arguing that art, as a whole, is useless to society. In the context brought up by the OP though, it's a pretty terrible methodology in trying to bring about the improvements the OP also wants.

A.A.King

2016-09-22, 02:56 PM

You're absolutely right, I never considered the fact that when we make art, we hope people will draw some message from it. No-one knows exactly what the intended message is, we just hand it out as "A message" and hope for the best. Similarly with writing, the fact that language has a very limited range of possible meanings somehow never translates into people being able to make educated guesses as to how society may be improved.

When the artwork that saved my life was invented, all we could really be sure of was that it would probably inspire someone, maybe.

Just because with art we can't be completely exact about which specific individual lives will improve doesn't immediately mean we don't know anything. If you really can't spot the similarities between how some art will improve lives and some won't, and how some technology improves lives and some won't, then that is just all the more reason to think about both art and science.

See how annoying it is? If you're going to be condescending, at least do me the personal favour of being correct first.

I don't find it annoying at all, especially since I know myself to be correct (even though you refuse to see it that way). And no, you don't have to repeat that phrase, I know very well that that specific sentiment usually goes both ways.

Let's look at it from a different angle then, when would YOU say that a work of Art has failed, is pointless? If "Art" is never pointless then it can never have a point, because apparently the bar to reach the status of Art is so low even my crime joke reached it. Is it about the message it js trying to send? Are we going to judge the merrit of Art on the message it ks trying to send? If so then it is all about which side you're on, something is good art if you agree with it and bad art if you disagree with it? Sounds a bit harsh. Is it about whether or not it made you change your view, is good art simply something that changes your mind on something? If that is the bar then propganda has some of the greatest works of art because that is an entire sub-genre of art soley focused on making you believe a certain thing?

Now I am already assuming that the message of a work of art is consistent, because there is large group of people who believe that even the Author doesn't know what the message of his or her work of art is, in which case all my previous possibilities of failed art no longer apply. Is it good art if it makes you think? Seems like another rather low bar, and more something that applies to whoever is "enjoying" the work then the work itself.

But you tell me, what makes something bad art, when would you say that an artist didn't contribute? Or would you never say that? Is creating "art" always a good thing from your point of view? I can tell you when technology failed, when technology doesn't contribute: When it doesn't do what it says on the tin, or, in the case of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, when it does something it absolutetly didn't mention on the tin.

Technology, Science, Medicine have goals and milestones, we can measure our achievements, we can guarantee you results and that is why they have merit

Someone in this thread said: Not all Students of Medicine are going to find a cure for cancer, but almkst everyone who gets a medical degeee will go on to save lives. What is the thing that most artists/most works of art will do that we can put next to "saving lives" or is the merit of every work of art and every artist the very remote possibility that he/she may be the next Rembrandt painting the next "The Night Watch"?

SaintRidley

2016-09-22, 02:57 PM

Before everyone continues to go on weird tangents related to art being useful or not, can we look at the context that brought this up to begin with?

If it had stopped at the second sentence its fine. You can make the world better with art. But then you follow-up with having more power, making more of a difference and then with but no matter what I do it's never enough. Thing is, while art CAN improve the world, it's very unlikely to be what cures the inequalities and unfairness that was also mentioned in society. People are arguing art is less effective at doing these things and they are 100% right in that regard. I don't think anyone is arguing that art, as a whole, is useless to society. In the context brought up by the OP though, it's a pretty terrible methodology in trying to bring about the improvements the OP also wants.

If you use that art to try and help shine a light on those inequalities, to galvanize more people to care about those inequalities, then maybe it can lead to curing them. Indirectly, sure, but art isn't about directness.

Amaril

2016-09-22, 03:13 PM

If it had stopped at the second sentence its fine. You can make the world better with art. But then you follow-up with having more power, making more of a difference and then with but no matter what I do it's never enough. Thing is, while art CAN improve the world, it's very unlikely to be what cures the inequalities and unfairness that was also mentioned in society. People are arguing art is less effective at doing these things and they are 100% right in that regard. I don't think anyone is arguing that art, as a whole, is useless to society. In the context brought up by the OP though, it's a pretty terrible methodology in trying to bring about the improvements the OP also wants.

I didn't mean to suggest that it never is enough--just that, when I have these moments of self-doubt, it feels like it's not enough. I don't feel that way most of the time, and I don't believe it when I'm my usual self.

And having more power in society makes a huge difference in how effective one's art can be. It makes it easier to transmit it more broadly; it gives you access to media reliant on expensive technology, like film, that can engage audiences who might not be captured by something more accessible like poetry or painting. I maintain that if all the most popular, most acclaimed artists in the world resolved to make a conscious, sustained effort at using their art for the benefit of all humanity, they would have a more profound effect on society than anything we've seen in a long, long time. The issue is that many of them don't, possibly because they don't care, or because they don't believe it would help, or because they see it as impractical, or for any number of other reasons. I think the same is true of any number of other fields, but no one here is doubting their validity.

Science is absolutely essential to the survival and advancement of humanity. But I'm not a scientist. I'm terrible at everything scientific; it's just not what I was made for. Art is the only thing I'm good at. All I want is to do the most good I can within the limits of what ability I possess.

Ruslan

2016-09-22, 03:20 PM

Art is the only thing I'm good at. All I want is to do the most good I can within the limits of what ability I possess.That's great!
You are on a worthy endeavor, and I wish you the best. Just remember, it's not going to be easy. The road is hard, and there will always be people doubting you and your choices. At times, you will doubt yourself. One step at a time. One foot in front of the other. Go get 'em.

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 03:25 PM

I don't find it annoying at all, especially since I know myself to be correct (even though you refuse to see it that way).

I do love it when you begin your argument by defining yourself to be right. If you've never read Julian Baggini's work "The duck that won the lottery, and 99 other bad arguments" you can pick up a copy very cheaply and identify the mistake you've made.

Let's look at it from a different angle then, when would YOU say that a work of Art has failed, is pointless?

For something to be literally completely pointless, it can't have helped anyone at all. For something to be suboptimal, all that is necessary is that there is some alteration you might have made to it to make it better. Any attempt to define a point in between is going to run headlong into the Sorites Problem, which is a problem with defining any arbitrary barrier between "Good" and "Bad" which society has known about for literally millenia.

If "Art" is never pointless then it can never have a point,

Antitautologies from my debate opponents are great, because it means that I don't even have to point out what's wrong with their arguments: their arguments are actually incorrect by definition. So thank you.

because apparently the bar to reach the status of Art is so low even my crime joke reached it. Is it about the message it js trying to send? Are we going to judge the merrit of Art on the message it ks trying to send? If so then it is all about which side you're on, something is good art if you agree with it and bad art if you disagree with it?

Would you say that weaponry innovations were good science or bad science? Or let me guess, is it good if you agree with warfare and bad if you're a pacifist? Categorisations of what people think is good or bad are subjective everywhere. No, art is not an exception to a rule that applies to literally everything. Well done. Have a cookie.

Sounds a bit harsh. Is it about whether or not it made you change your view, is good art simply something that changes your mind on something? If that is the bar then propganda has some of the greatest works of art because that is an entire sub-genre of art soley focused on making you believe a certain thing?

Good art is art that makes you change your view from an incorrect, hostile or bigoted one to a correct, amicable, or tolerant one. That's a good start to what I would call good art.

Now I am already assuming that the message of a work of art is consistent, because there is large group of people who believe that even the Author doesn't know what the message of his or her work of art is, in which case all my previous possibilities of failed art no longer apply. Is it good art if it makes you think? Seems like another rather low bar, and more something that applies to whoever is "enjoying" the work then the work itself.

But you tell me, what makes something bad art, when would you say that an artist didn't contribute? Or would you never say that? Is creating "art" always a good thing from your point of view? I can tell you when technology failed, when technology doesn't contribute. When it doesn't do what it says on the tin, or, in the case of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, when it does something it absolutetly didn't mention on the tin.

Technology, Science, Medicine have goals and milestones, we can measure our achievements, we can guarantee you results and that is why they have merit

Really? Really? Are pain and suffering really not all that bad because we have no consistent way of measuring them? Is quality of life totally unimportant because there's no objective standard? Is it totally pointless to be moral because, hells, we can't even agree on what being moral means? Is distance meaningless until measured, death irrelevant until the toll is counted? To say that the ability to measure one's achievement is the reason why anything has merit is not only entirely false, it does not even resemble the truth in any way whatever.

Someone in this thread said: Not all Students of Medicine are going to find a cure for cancer, but almkst everyone who gets a medical degeee will go on to save lives. What is the thing that most artists/most works of art will do that we can put next to "saving lives" or is the merit of every work of art and every artist the very remote possibility that he/she may be the next Rembrandt painting the next "The Night Watch"?

Given the relative time investment of a medical degree and creating a painting on a whim has such a massive disparity, one might be kind enough to hold the latter to lower standards, even if I wasn't going to bring up the fact that multiple people are only alive because of art. There are multiple stories of people marching off to war, seeing some form of artistic expression, and then tearfully turning back, and whether or not they're true, they're believable because that's the exact type of effect that art really has. To call it useless is absurd. To say it's meaningless that people's lives have literally been saved, to ignore this simple fact by the fact that it wasn't done by directly operating on them, is absurdity of the highest circle of grave illogic.

A.A.King

2016-09-22, 04:59 PM

I do love it when you begin your argument by defining yourself to be right. If you've never read Julian Baggini's work "The duck that won the lottery, and 99 other bad arguments" you can pick up a copy very cheaply and identify the mistake you've made.

I find this very rich coming from the one who said to me that you have to be correct before you can be condescending (right after he was being condescending). Are you honestly trying to tell me that you are having this discussion with an open mind and that you haven't already made your mind up?

For something to be literally completely pointless, it can't have helped anyone at all. For something to be suboptimal, all that is necessary is that there is some alteration you might have made to it to make it better. Any attempt to define a point in between is going to run headlong into the Sorites Problem, which is a problem with defining any arbitrary barrier between "Good" and "Bad" which society has known about for literally millenia.

A fine line is an arbitrary barrier, which is why I willing to accept a certain amount of grey in the middle. But if you can't point out what makes a work of art fail, makes it bad, then I don't see how it can be good. There can be no winner without a loser, I'm not handing out participation trophies here. You have to accept that sometimes trying isn't enough, sometimes you can't do it, sometimes you are a failure. If you are generally going to devote your life to art and expect people to accept that from you. More importantly, if you expect people to make it possible for you afford a life devoted only to creating art you better well set yourself some kind of target. If your only target is "having eventually some affect in the grand scheme of things" then that is too low mate. You might as well just flap your wings and claim the hurricane to be your creation.

Antitautologies from my debate opponents are great, because it means that I don't even have to point out what's wrong with their arguments: their arguments are actually incorrect by definition. So thank you.
Well, it is nice to know that you believe that as long as I call it art, you'll consider it meaningful. "Stuff I made" will soon be in a Museum near you and I'm expecting a generous contribution from you.

Would you say that weaponry innovations were good science or bad science? Or let me guess, is it good if you agree with warfare and bad if you're a pacifist? Categorisations of what people think is good or bad are subjective everywhere. No, art is not an exception to a rule that applies to literally everything. Well done. Have a cookie.
The line between "Good Science" and "Bad Science" when it comes to weapons is not drawn between pacifists and other people, but between the side who got the new weapon and the side who it is being used on. If you're in a war and you need an edge, you try and create a better weapon. You have a goal, you have a purpose, you have your standards set and you know you're successful only when you've met them. How many wars should a poem not have ended before you're willing to accept it was less useful then the Bomb?

Good art is art that makes you change your view from an incorrect, hostile or bigoted one to a correct, amicable, or tolerant one. That's a good start to what I would call good art.
There we go, I knew that would be it: "Good art is good when it makes you agree with me". It's always what people end up saying yet people never are willing to admit that their standard is ultimately "Propaganda that works and I agree with". Of course, you didn't actually say you agreed with my definition which uses the word "propaganda" but instead offered your own which uses the words "incorrect", "hostile" and "bigoted" three of the least subjective words in the English language. If only there was a work of Art I could show you that would make you accept my position, which would make you less hostile towards someone who doesn't agree with you when it comes to art?

Really? Really? Are pain and suffering really not all that bad because we have no consistent way of measuring them? Is quality of life totally unimportant because there's no objective standard? Is it totally pointless to be moral because, hells, we can't even agree on what being moral means? Is distance meaningless until measured, death irrelevant until the toll is counted? To say that the ability to measure one's achievement is the reason why anything has merit is not only entirely false, it does not even resemble the truth in any way whatever.

I'm very certain there are rules on this forum which state we can't debate what makes something Morally Justified which I'm pretty sure cover all aspects of Moral Relativism, so I'm not sure how deep we can go here. But it is nice to know that measuring achievements is pointless. Bill Gates, the man who achieved the status of "Richest Man Alive" multiple years and who is achieving a whole lot of good with that money at the moment is of course just as much contributing to society as Crazy Joe, the guy who lives just around the corner who doesn't seem to have done anything other than stare out of his window since the late 90s.

You seem to be confusing things that have a standard with things that can't be measured, there is a huge gap in between. There is big difference between my quality of life and the quality of life of someone who doesn't have regular acces to water or food. I may not be able to exactly quantify the difference, but I do know that the other person isn't exactly going to be helped by having a nice picture on his wall. Keep painting though it makes you feel any better.

Also: for someone who keeps insisting that the merit of art is relative you hell bent on making me believe the absolute statement that it does have merit. How about you accept that to this (and other) particular distant relatives it generally doesn't have any merit?

Given the relative time investment of a medical degree and creating a painting on a whim has such a massive disparity, one might be kind enough to hold the latter to lower standards, even if I wasn't going to bring up the fact that multiple people are only alive because of art. There are multiple stories of people marching off to war, seeing some form of artistic expression, and then tearfully turning back, and whether or not they're true, they're believable because that's the exact type of effect that art really has. To call it useless is absurd. To say it's meaningless that people's lives have literally been saved, to ignore this simple fact by the fact that it wasn't done by directly operating on them, is absurdity of the highest circle of grave illogic.

Just because something saves a life doesn't make it good. Two wrongs may make a right but that doesn't make either of the wrongs more right on it's own. It's true that painting a picture doesn't take as much time as getting a medical degree, but that goes for most things. Me typing all this took less time that getting a medical degree, are you also going to say that that is meaningful? I could write a nice little piece on why art is generally meaningless, which I would then call a work of art, would you say that had meaning?

You keep saying that certain works of arts have done certain things to certain people at certain times. But just because Someone, somewhere might do something, doesn't make it a valuable investment, doesn't make what you create a valid contribution to society. The chance that when you "create art" there is a return on investment is just too low for it to be considered meaningful, even if certain pieces did manage to achieve certain things.

Let me compare it to something else: Just becomes someone somewhere ended up winning the jackpot after he bought a lottery ticket with his last 10 dollars rather than using it to provide food for his starving family doesn't make "Buying a lottery ticket" a smart investment.

If we are going to define art as "the things created by people who were trying to make art" then I don't consider that practice meaningful if an incredibly tiny percentage had a tangible affect on more than a handful of people. Yes, some pieces of art have launched countries into battle but at the same time some lottery tickets will make you an instant millionaire.

Though, seeing as it is all relative and your main standard for art is to have someone lose their "hostile" views I'm sure you are willing to accept that I disagree with how you view "art."

Jormengand

2016-09-22, 05:12 PM

At this point the points you're making are essentially unrelated to the ones you're responding to, so there's no real reason for us to have this discussion. Good day, sir.

Asmodean_

2016-09-25, 08:12 AM

Sigh...
Okay we're missing the point here.
I'm not saying that either out of art or humanitarian aid is more important (actually I am saying humanitarian aid is more important but that's only tangential to my argument), what I am saying is that we're taking about one guy.
A number that's been thrown around here is one in one million. We'll roll with that.
If this guy wants to help under-privileged people with art, there's a 0.0001℅ chance it will make a real difference. If he wants to help them with humanitarian aid, there's a 100℅ chance he's going to make a difference.
In response to the first two or so pages of this thread: OP says he got privilege. He's got a head start. Good! Take it. Don't bite the hand that fed you. And yes - at a fundamental level, you don't deserve it - nobody does. Doesn't mean you should give it up. If you feel you got an unfair advantage, the fairest thing to do is use that advantage to help others without it.
Although personally I would just be thankful I got the advantage and be done with it.

Jormengand

2016-09-25, 08:50 AM

Right, except that humanitarian aid by well-intentioned people has often been shown to make things worse as often as better. Also, I would take exception to the idea that art only helps people one time in a million... maybe less a million, and more, Iunno, four? So for someone who's good at art but doesn't know anything about humanitarian aid, the chances that they'll do something useful with art are easily higher than the probability that they'll do something useful with anything else.

EDIT: Let's look at it another way. Suppose your amazingly wonderful debating skills do indeed inspire him to do some humanitarian work, and he does, and he helps people. Ask yourself, what are the antecedant, causal factors that played into him doing that in the first place? Well, the first reason is that you made your argument, which in a sense is a form of artwork in its own right, although that stretches the definition at least a little. But why did you make this argument at all? Probably because you saw this thread on the Giant in the Playground forums, which as previously noted is a forum which only exists due to Rich Burlew's incredible artistic skills. Not to mention the other benefits that the comic has brought. But, hang on, why does this webcomic exist? Probably due to the artistic merits of one E. Gary Gygax, and those who came after him and made the many, many iterations of Dungeons and Dragons, which is one of the first, if not the first, of an entire genre of games about artistic self-expression. So if you do inspire him to do humanitarian aid, then it was only because art gave you the tools to do that in the first instance.

Kid Jake

2016-09-25, 10:11 AM

If art can take credit for us suggesting actually getting out there and doing something, just because the discussion takes place near a comic, then I think it's also fair it takes the blame for every skinhead that reads Mein Kampf and thinks "that sounds about right."

Asmodean_

2016-09-25, 10:46 AM

Right, except that humanitarian aid by well-intentioned people has often been shown to make things worse as often as better. Also, I would take exception to the idea that art only helps people one time in a million... maybe less a million, and more, Iunno, four? So for someone who's good at art but doesn't know anything about humanitarian aid, the chances that they'll do something useful with art are easily higher than the probability that they'll do something useful with anything else.

I agree that one in a million is stretching it, but four is too far. Even so, it's 50% against <25%.

EDIT: Let's look at it another way. Suppose your amazingly wonderful debating skills do indeed inspire him to do some humanitarian work, and he does, and he helps people. Ask yourself, what are the antecedant, causal factors that played into him doing that in the first place? Well, the first reason is that you made your argument, which in a sense is a form of artwork in its own right, although that stretches the definition at least a little. But why did you make this argument at all? Probably because you saw this thread on the Giant in the Playground forums, which as previously noted is a forum which only exists due to Rich Burlew's incredible artistic skills. Not to mention the other benefits that the comic has brought. But, hang on, why does this webcomic exist? Probably due to the artistic merits of one E. Gary Gygax, and those who came after him and made the many, many iterations of Dungeons and Dragons, which is one of the first, if not the first, of an entire genre of games about artistic self-expression. So if you do inspire him to do humanitarian aid, then it was only because art gave you the tools to do that in the first instance.

.......really? You're going to stretch it that far? If I didn't know you, I'd break out Poe's Law and remind you to use blue text next time. If you go back enough, anything can be caused by anything. If you go back far enough, I'm Irish*. Hell, I can thank good ol' Addy Hitler for my existence because without it my mother would never have moved out of Hong Kong! (pm for politics details if you're interested)

* I'm Australian

Jormengand

2016-09-25, 12:46 PM

There's a difference between "If you go back far enough" and "No, literally, right now this moment".

Asmodean_

2016-09-25, 01:56 PM

TIL: It's actually 1974 right now and I just hadn't noticed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Version_history)

Razade

2016-09-25, 08:49 PM

Right, except that humanitarian aid by well-intentioned people has often been shown to make things worse as often as better.

Other than what Kid Jake has already said, this isn't how things go. We don't not do things because there is a possibility they might come out bad. If that were the case then no one would do anything. Eating food might kill you because you're allergic so don't eat. People die in their sleep so don't sleep. It's utterly absurd to argue that just because something that has positive benifits doesn't always work that another thing is equally or even marginally as helpful. Humanitarian aid and art can't be compared no matter how you try to smoosh them together.

[QUOTE=Jormengand;21239610]Also, I would take exception to the idea that art only helps people one time in a million... maybe less a million, and more, Iunno, four? So for someone who's good at art but doesn't know anything about humanitarian aid, the chances that they'll do something useful with art are easily higher than the probability that they'll do something useful with anything else.

With you here, people are throwing around numbers they can't possibly back up which is just sloppy. The rest though, the "only good at art' bit. You don't need to be good at handing out sandwiches. Or helping fix a pipe in some third world village. You don't need a Doctorate to carry boxes, you don't need a Master's degree to work in a soup kitchen or carry an old woman's groceries. The argument that "I'm only good at X" is nonsense from the get go. You can learn how to do things.

EDIT: Let's look at it another way. Suppose your amazingly wonderful debating skills do indeed inspire him to do some humanitarian work, and he does, and he helps people. Ask yourself, what are the antecedant, causal factors that played into him doing that in the first place? Well, the first reason is that you made your argument, which in a sense is a form of artwork in its own right, although that stretches the definition at least a little.

No. No and no. Argumentation is not a literal art form. The fact you know you're fiddling with the language to try and establish your argument gives your whole game away. You're not arguing on good faith here my man.

But why did you make this argument at all? Probably because you saw this thread on the Giant in the Playground forums, which as previously noted is a forum which only exists due to Rich Burlew's incredible artistic skills.

The two things are absolutely unrelated as I (and I was one of the first to raise issue with art and helping people) would make them anywhere. You are you assuming peoples reasons and telling them what their thought process is to establish your point and make a rather tenuois link between art and helping people. Bad form, tut tut.

Not to mention the other benefits that the comic has brought.

Such...as? I mean...if even if we grant your argument (and we shouldn't because you'd demonstrated that it's specious) you're not really demonstrating it with you know...evidence...

But, hang on, why does this webcomic exist?

To make money. Originally to drive traffic to the forums. But now it's to make money. Entertaining people is the vehicle in which the money comes in. It's certainly not to help people.

Probably due to the artistic merits of one E. Gary Gygax, and those who came after him and made the many, many iterations of Dungeons and Dragons, which is one of the first, if not the first, of an entire genre of games about artistic self-expression.

Well...that certainly helped the process...I'd say more that the webcomic is here because of the artist and storytelling abilities of Rich Burlew and because he has an audiance that supports him. Also, Dungeons and Dragons didn't begin as a "game about artistic self-expression". No idea where the hell you're getting that.

So if you do inspire him to do humanitarian aid, then it was only because art gave you the tools to do that in the first instance.

Nope. The forums aren't art for one. They existed before the webcomic for two. The argument to "get off your artistic butt and do some real good" exists independent of the medium its transferred through as does the merits of it. This is such a baffling argument.