Divinity Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition

I have explained why he does it the way he does it - it doesn't need to be any different for people to lap it up. This is standard practice within the film and video game composing sphere.

 

i've seen doctors of humanities who were as clueless as a sack of potato, and whose contribution to 'science' that granted them their doctorates were endless piles of questionnaires given to students and lists of whatever things

being a doctor of humanities nowadays means completely fuck all, in fact most of the folks who stay at universities to pursue (((science careers))) are living mediocrities who could never, ever hope to achieve any sort of success doing honest work

 

The attitude you describe is especially aggravating among the schmucks who manage, by circuitous means, to get let's say around PhD level, plunge into full delirium of omnipotence because they feel they've been elevated among the chosen ones, and spend the time trying to show the width of the (very much) alleged chasm between themselves and the unwashed plebs. Seen so many.

 

The divide between any sort of scientific institution and the general public has been criticized and noted by the post-modernists in the last century, I am aware of the general disconnect between the two.

 

This sounds very much like the Sacred Trinity of Psychology, Sociology and Paedagogy.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...es-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

 

shit son, I'm not seeing it.

 

Not seeing what? That it's standard practice? Or you don't see the problems? Do you see atoms and even smaller particles? Or gravity?

 

could have been a case of reading comprehension, I'm curious though, because you're either claiming he's following an exact formula that is 'the standard in the film and video game composing sphere', or you're still just throwing derisive shit around, which one is it?

 

The doctor's work's quality is more easily quantifiable than that of a humanities academic's work.

 

It's not an exact formula per se, it's a method that doesn't need to be any different for people to gobble it up. As AwesomeButton explained, Bobby only gave Stoyanov a theme/melody/motif and then Stoyanov gave it to the orchestra in some fashion. What happens is that he comes up with some harmony (usually I, IV, V, VI chords in that order) to go along with the melody by playing it on a keyboard attached to a program like Logic, then designates which instruments will be playing the harmony and then exports the file into Sibelius or Finale to make it into an actual score for the parts. What this creates is the obvious gaps of more than an octave, the random entrances of instruments, the lack of logical following of a texture and the non-existent voice-leading because of that.

 

and he's doing that and not something else that would be better because it's time/ cost effective/ technically easier and appeals to the lowest common denominator? Because I can't really buy your claim that people will 'lap it up', this is no Jeremy Soule soundtrack we're hearing here. If it's time/ cost effective, would it be a rather quick affair (without accounting for an artist's quirks), and we must assume the rest of the time he sat around twiddling his thumbs, or simply doing other jobs?

 

It's definitely easy and cost effective, I'm not sure how long it takes for a score this long, but 3 months of non-grueling work sounds about right. It does indeed appeal to the lowest common denominator, as is evident by the overall positive reception of the music and even comparisons with Kirill.

 

To use an academic qualification as a honorific notion of some sort is a huge red flag, especially in humanities. But that applies to any area. If you think that the hard science camp is pure objective science championed by the best and the brightest, you are deluled. These camps are filled with studies that are impossible to replicate, downright frauds and delusional fads that waste an ungodly amount of taxpayers’ money. I personally knew dumb illiterate people working with "cutting edge" treatment of cancer, among other things. It's not a pretty picture.

You mean those obscure charlatans that have no clue how to present an argument in canonical form? Those post-modernists?

 

Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss, have you actually read any post-modernists? Are you saying they are wrong in pointing out the divide between scientific institutions and the general public and there is no divide?

 

Read then? I was bombarded by this nonsense for years.

The point I was trying to make is that if there is a divide between scientific institutions and the general public, you won’t be able to find any cognitive support for this thesis on post-modernists, and it is silly to suggest that they made some significant breakthroughs abut the subject that we should all check it out. You can state something that is true by accident with obscure pretentious prose. That is trivial. What matters is if you can support this statement with sophisticated arguments and refined conceptual analysis.

If you can’t tell the difference between Deleuze and Searle, or notice what is wrong with the way Deleuze writes, there is something seriously flawed in your academic “training”.

 

If you think so, write a book savagely criticising them and their philosophy, that's the only way to get your point across.

 

You mean, like Sokal and Bricmont’s “Intellectual Impostures”? There is a ton of references. Their disciples don’t care about facts and arguments.

 

Oh, the analytical vs. continental, here we go again...

 

And Intellectual Impostures has criticisms of its own. Are you saying that it provides the objective judgement on the whole of post-modernism?

 

I have no idea if the PoMos did that but even if they did, they would be neither qualified to do so or have much to say about it from the academic pov of PoMo. Applying PoMo outside of its sphere of textual criticism is one of its biggest issues.

 

This is the first thing that comes to my mind as a citation -

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

 

That's where they get it wrong. First of all, Wittgensteinian ideas of Language games should be used very carefully. Just because Scientific discourse is out of the bounds of the interpretation, it does not automatically make it an exterior. In the end, Science is still done by Humans comprehensible to Humans. Its esoteric character is simply a product of its rigor and not its dissociation from Humanity.