I think that quote is better broken down with the idea of, "can it be explained in simple terms or not."
Of course. I'm just saying that trying to make shit sound complex to make it sound intelligent or interesting is cringe. Now, is complexity actually a desirable trait? Sure, but it should be hidden underneath the surface of a digestible theory. Using it as a form of gatekeeping ironically enough only lets retards in.
I adressed this in the latter part of my post. Not everything can or should be broken down into a single short sentence that a 5 y/o on Tik Tok can understand. I suck at math, but I dont expect a professor to be able to explain to me PhD level math in a single short sentence and I wouldnt think he actually doesnt understand it just because he cant explain it to a retard like me. Some books take time, secondary texts and multiple reads to understand and there is nothing wrong with that.
Should it always be? And digestible for who tho? This is what I dont understand, why is a theorist or an artist (for example) supposed to give a watered down version of his work if this process of watering down negates the specific artistic or theoretical goal of his work? Why are we entitled to them having to compromise the integrity of their work? They have to hide the complexity of their work just so people never feel like they don't understand something? Sometimes it can be done, and thats fine, but sometimes it simply can't be done because some things are just digestible at the end and not on the surface and there is nothing wrong with that.
No, but if he wanted to teach it to you he would probably start with simple terms you could understand instead of throwing you into ‘people who do this for a living jargon’.
It's not about dumbing down the work, but being more efficient about it. If an "artist" can't do that, it simply signifies that they don't have a mastery over it. And I'm assuming they're making art for the sake of sharing it with others, otherwise they would just keep it to themselves (barring very rare exceptions). Often enough, complexity is just a way to hide the lack of substance within a product or service. It's great for midwits but boring for the actually intelligent and stupid.
Ironic that you've failed to understand what I actually meant while talking about the very concept of understanding.
My point is that I don't think he could even do that without going through pre-PhD level math first. I think (maybe I'm wrong) that trying to use simple terms without doing that first could at best give me an "image" of what the people who do PhD math do but I wouldnt really be getting any closer at grasping what it really is (its like the difference between watching a picture of a place instead of being and living in that said place). Also, I don't think it's possible, if we are being autistic about it, for such ideas to be separated from the people-who-do-this-for-a-living-jargon, the technical language of science is there for a reason (or multiple ones).
You know which works of "art" are very efficient in the sense that they are very digestible and are very unlikely to confuse you or anyone with complex use of language or whatever? Marvel movies. Every single person in the world can understand them, you instantly know who the bad guys and who the good guys are, you don't need to watch them more than one time, you get the straight "substance" without any formal complexities that waste your time, just the facts without any confusing philosophical depth. Does this mean the writers of marvel movies have a superior mastery over writing than obstuse guys like Borges that fill their stories with metaphysical paradoxes and non-linear plots, or people who write very emotionally complex characters like Shakespeare does? Does the fact that there are still people arguing if Hamlet was really crazy or just pretending mean Shakespeare had less of a mastery over his craft than marvel writers?
Everything has fundamentals, simplicity is what gets you in the door. You say you wouldn’t be able to get any closer to grasping what it really is but that’s literally the process to understanding ‘complex’ things.
We?
Mostly true but I would say that there are many things that are real, but not all real things exist.
Now that is some deep philosophical talk that will get you institutionalized if you're not careful. Worst part is that it's not even that deep.
People that use AI to shitpost are literally souless. It cannot be that hard to come up with something funny.
