Should literature be primarily aestheticist or primarily intellectual?

Aesthetics is the endgame of the intellect.

>reading for intellect
LUL

Stay mirin

Why not have both types?

>>27411
this

>>26392
That's the wrong dichotomy---are Pale Fire and Ada not 'intellectual?' Surely you meant 'didactic' or 'allegorical' (in a classical sense)?

>>26392
>>26392
Do you say the product of having read aesthetic literature is to simply mean having an aesthetic subject matter when speaking? or to be caught with an aesthetic work in ones possession and having people think highly of you?

If you mean either of those cases, then i agree.

Traditionally intellect was a worthy primary goal of literature. But now science holds the domain of the intellectual, and with good reason, for it is a cold utilitarian efficient path toward it, a path that literature could never keep up with. But because science is so utilitarian, it is entirely missing in aesthetic quality. Literature's new place in society is to supplement the intellectual rigor of science with a necessary aesthetic appeal.

>>27411
Aesthetics is a vehicle for intellect

>>29914
maths doe

File: Abdullah_Ocalan2.jpg (23KB, 402x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 402x276px

>>26392
Reading is for fun.

op just spent four years in college and $40,000 to be able to write that sentence, guys

>>29914
How can science be expressed without literary use?

>>26392
>Should literature be primarily aestheticist or primarily intellectual?

Yes.