<p>There seem to be a lot of philosophical threads going around lately, so I thought I might as well make my own :D</p>
<p>I was wondering about this for a while. At first, it seemed like stories provided an escape from this world. But then I thought that it wasn’t that they were an escape from this world, but attempts to dig deeper into it. Stories reflect truths about the world. In a way, they do allow you to escape, but they allow you to escape everyday perceptions, and show you new ways to see the same thing.</p>
<p>I feel stories can be quite useful. Because we get exposed to the “real world” constantly, we get used to it, ignoring the ideals we need to follow, which are called “themes” in stories. Stories are just a different medium other than reality to obtain an understanding of the basis of reality.</p>
<p>I’ll define stories as creative works, such as plays, novels, fables, movies, and music. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stories are escapes from this world. We live vicariously through the characters. We feel for the protagonist in a movie, and we rail against the antagonist in a movie. This is the purpose of drama, according to Aristotle. We become the character for two hours or so. This is cathartic; this allows us to purge our own excess emotions. We feel the pain the protagonist feels; we live his or her struggle. We also feel the triumph the protagonist feels at the end of the movie. Anyone who has watched a movie can testify to the fact that we become emotionally congruent with the protagonist. </p>
<p>I should also note that stories provide an escape not only for the audience but also for the author. Stories also serve as emotional outlets for those who conceive of them. When we have pent-up emotions, we want to express them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, stories do that also. I distinctly recall the story of the scorpion and the frog. Are we inherently irrational? Are some behaviors so deeply ingrained that they cannot be changed? </p>
<p>* A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”</p>
<p>The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp “Why?” </p>
<pre><code> Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”
</code></pre>
<p>*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stories reflect what the author thinks is true about the world. Kierkegaard painted a deeply bureaucratic and impersonal world in his various stories. Whether his conception of the world is accurate is debatable.</p>
<p>No, these philosophical threads are here to make those people who can’t intelligently partake in the conversation feel bad, thereby compelling them to make sarcastic remarks.</p>
<p>these threads are no more by random strangers than any other threads. i am against labeling any discussion philosophical though cuz philosophical seems to suggest to me being removed from the fights going on in the world, the suffering the struggles, figuring out what do with your life, whatever is important - but i actually think questions like “what’s the point of stories” can be very important to clarify for yourself (if you don’t want to waste your time reading dumb stories that don’t fill you with a sense of purpose, or whatever the best feelings are to get out of life).</p>
<p>also it seems to be like a qualifier - that i’m only allowed to talk about x if i label it philosophical - which is just stupid. any post that is not genuine, but someone trying to sound smart, or whatever, will be mercilessly called out for it from my experience. i do not feel that that is the case with this thread.</p>
<p>also this is stresssedouttt. that would be the last thing i would expect from him.</p>
<p>True. Still, all stories must contain some truth in them, because all stories are connected to the “real world.” A story completely disconnected couldn’t be completely understood. Although I suppose some stories would be “truer” than others, because, like you said, an author might portray a view which is “untrue.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But perhaps we treat stories as escapes, not from reality, but from our own perceptions of reality.</p>
<p>hmm in the last few weeks i mixed you and studious together in my mind or something. the ‘what gender are you’ thread should have straightened this all out. did you post there?</p>
Ok, then we need more people calling out on these types of threads (I am not necessarily meaning this one in particular, but these types threads in general that are outcropping on HSL). If you write like some people do in these “philosophical threads” in an actual philosophy course, then expect to see a failing grade. Sprinkling in obscure words, unorthodox phrasing, and random allusions does not make you sound intelligent, but rather pretentious and in accordance with the various definitions for “College Confidential” on Urban Dictionary. </p>
<p>I am always reminded by a particular AP English Language and Composition passage … it’s the one about writing in a “familiar style,” and it’s available in the AP Lang Course Description, which is publicly posted on the College Board website. </p>
<p>Ah. Here we go. My favorite AP Lang passage of all time. If you want to arrive at the specific passage, search for the phrase “familiar style.” </p>
<p>I keep up with all the philosophical posts and threads in HS life, and none of them have struck me as particularly arduous, either in content or style. </p>
<p>Oh, and I didn’t fail my philosophy class either. Rather, the teacher thoroughly appreciated my writing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ability to use elevated diction, unfamiliar but formal phrasing, and erudite allusions does not lend an air the writer an air of pretentiousness, unless he - or she - does so without tact. I have found all the philosophical posts in HS Life to be written with tact - varying degrees, yes - but I have yet to read a post written without tact.</p>
<p>The ability to appreciate the prose stylist’s tact is not a commonly found quality, so one must wonder if the fault lies not with the writer but with the audience. Indeed, some may mistake elevated diction for unnecessary pomp, and correct grammar for arrogance, and didactic references for mere bravado, but if so, the fault lies firmly in the reader. Perhaps the reader genuinely believes that the writer is writing not to express but to elevate himself. If so, this is a misunderstanding, I assure you. Now, what is more likely is that some of the readers simply lack this spark of genius, this mental ability, to sympathize with our deeper sentiments, concerns, and thoughts. If so, the fault lies wholly with the reader. This, I believe, to be the case, and the cause of the rather unwelcome and snide posts denouncing some posters’ efforts to express their higher emotions, thoughts, and feelings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, start calling these types of threads out, especially if they are my threads. I would love any constructive criticism pertaining to my writing on CC. I assure you that my feelings will not be hurt; rather, I will be delighted by the mere fact that someone decided to take a bit of his or her time to not only peruse my post but also to comment on my post :).</p>
<p>This post is in violation of Rules 7, 9, and 10 of the document to which you linked. </p>
<ol>
<li> Thou shalt give reasons or evidence for thy assertions.</li>
<li>Thou shalt not neglect proper footnoting and bibliographic procedure</li>
</ol>
<p>Was your teacher a philosophy major? What you posted is in opposition to any guideline on philosophical writing I’ve seen.</p>
<p>You can easily say what you mean in more accessible and concise terms - any more does not strengthen your argument. Since the additional fluff does not further expand the argument and often involves arcane vocabulary and the like, it is commonly seen as pretentious.</p>
<p>aldfig, i think you confused the issue by mentioning how the threads would get failing grades in philosophy courses, and then by linking to those guidelines, which just seem to be good practices for any attempt at objective inquiry about something. </p>
<p>any of the ‘philosophical’ threads are named so not because people mistakenly think, oh, those threads are like how philosophers write, but because they just sound like they’re about what people think of as philosophical things. aspects of the human condition, the nature of things, whatever. that’s my take on it anyway. </p>
<p>yeah, maybe hsl’s response to low quality things hasn’t been as decisive as I made it sound, but i have faith we will all be okay, and balance will be restored.</p>
<p>@aldfig0 dude chill if you hate these threads so much, I don’t understand why you’re on them in the 1st place. this is not a philosophy course, this is a public forum where people are free to talk about whatever they like.</p>
<p>You choose to engage in these pointless tangential issues. How about you start showing me how I can excise the excess from my writing? Or is my writing so lean, so raw, so efficient that there is nothing to excise? And did you ever question your premise? Does my writing even fall under conventional philosophical discourse, or is it something greater altogether? </p>
<p>In any case, my teacher has a masters in philosophy and has published two books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why let others speak, especially when they all say the same thing? Citing one author is enough to get the point across. Citing multiple professors as if they were Gods shows that you are basing your argument too heavily on authority. You do know this is fallacious, right? In addition, the use of other professors’ writings as crutches indicates a clear paucity on your part - a dearth of both sympathy to our ideas and a dearth of ability to even begin comprehending my writing, much less show me where my writing has been excessive. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The mediocre circumscribes himself with the rules and constructs of others. If everyone relied on convention, then there would be no literary innovation. If everyone relied on convention, then there would be no plays, no streams-of-consciousness, and no talk-stories. All of the aforementioned literary styles were at once considered highly original. I like to consider myself to be on the cutting edge of literary innovation by meshing a unique style of writing with philosophical issues. Circumscribing me to “your” ridiculous rules limits my ability to innovate. Circumscribing me to your rules may aid you in your comprehension of my higher thoughts, but my goal is not to speak to the rabble; rather, I converse with the enlightened. As William Strunk, Jr. wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would go further and say that there are no “violation[s]” in writing because there are no rules in writing. But I have to agree with him about what the “best writers” do - they might break convention - but always for the betterment of their prose. I fancy myself as one of those writers to whom Strunk refers.</p>
<p>Perhaps he feels intellectually intimidated and has the urge to insert himself into a conversation, in which he is clearly the dwarf, as to console himself with the fact that he was “participating” in the erudite and enlightened discourse of giants?</p>
if you hate these threads so much, I don’t understand why you’re on them in the 1st place. this is not a philosophy course, this is a public forum where people are free to talk about whatever they like.</p>