Comrade Sonia's Panties in a Bundle

[KacyRay]

What is OO?

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivism Online

--Brant

[caroljane]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

[BaalChatzaf]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

They are shi'ite Objectivists.

[caroljane]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

They are shi'ite Objectivists.

??? I would say Sunnis rather. I cannot imagine Lenny P even metaphorically as the martyr Hussain.

[Roger Bissell]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

They are shi'ite Objectivists.

??? I would say Sunnis rather. I cannot imagine Lenny P even metaphorically as the martyr Hussain.

I believe you're correct. My impression is that they don't know Shi'ite. :-)

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

They are shi'ite Objectivists.

??? I would say Sunnis rather. I cannot imagine Lenny P even metaphorically as the martyr Hussain.

Point taken. Make that Sunni.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

What is OO?

Objectivism Online is the "offical Objectivist" forum. A lot of OLers are members there. I think of it as "OL lite".

They are shi'ite Objectivists.

??? I would say Sunnis rather. I cannot imagine Lenny P even metaphorically as the martyr Hussain.

I believe you're correct. My impression is that they don't know Shi'ite. :-)

REB

Well played, sir.

[caroljane]

Further to above I notice fans donated a few HATS to a struggling young player last night. Just checked a few stats and can't seem to find the Wings with a player in the top 10 or team points above 39, unlike,oh, say the :Leafs --gee, must be some mistake, no?

Gleefully,

Carol

It sure is hard to type with all your fingers crossed.

Daunce: my deepest apologies.

I was not aware that the Maple Leafs were actually doing decent this year, and may make the playoffs for the first time in roughly 10 years, notwithstanding that they draw upon the best Canadian hockey talent and have a super fat payroll year in and year out.

That is absolutely true. You did not even mention that this team was destroyed in the 70s by the worst team owner who ever lived. The Blackhawks fans endured Old Man Wirtz by boycotting games, but Leafs Nation still showed up.

The best Cdn talent we draw on is shrinking however, as the traditional Anglo and Franco families are, especially in Quebec where the Revenge of the Cradle used to produce a priest, a nun, a forward and a D-man plus several grandkids from every household. Now if we cannot lure the 2nd and 3rd generation of Mideast, Asian and South American immigrant families onto the ice, Our Game will shrink. It won't die - when Hell freezes over we will still play hockey on it -- but it will wither and the quality of play will drop.

[Jonathan]

Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, is back to the subject of "phertography" (that's how she pronounces it), and whether or not it can quality as art.

In one of her latest Philsosophy Inaction segments, she answers the following question:

Does photography qualify as art? I've always viewed photography as a legitimate form of art. However, many people I disagree: Ayn Rand argued that it's a technical rather than a creative skill. However, I regard photography as a technical and creative skill, just like painting. So does photography qualify as art? If not, does that mean that photography doesn't have value – or has less value than proper art forms like painting? If photography has value nonetheless, what is the source of that value?

Her "Answer, In Brief," is:

In my view, photography is not, strictly speaking, art because it's not wholly the creation of the artist in the way that painting is. However, that doesn't imply anything about the value of photography, which is often considerable.

In the audio segment, she says:

"There's a difference in the process of creation. So, with painting, every element is created by the painter. The work is truly and wholly the creation of the artist. This is not true with photography. You are reproducing a scene, and it's the physical mechanism of the camera that's reproducing the scene. and so The result is only partly under control of the artist...The photographer's control over his creation is limited. Far more is simply set by nature. And as a result of that I do think that painting requires more testicle(?WTF?) skills, plus more creativity and more selection. The result reflects the artist more than the photographer does."

So, she hasn't learned anything since the last time that she opined on the subject. On this thread over on OO, I thoroughly refuted her assertions of "factual distinctions" about photography's nature, and I did so with illustrated examples. If you'll recall, she read that post of mine and complained about it to her facebook pals (as I reported in the first post on this thread), but did she learn anything from it? Hell no.

Yet there she is once again repeating her ignorant opinions on the subject, and reminding her listeners that we shouldn't get upset over disagreements because it's not really a very important issue.

I have to wonder why she keeps coming back to the issue, while never learning anything about it, but yet maintaining her erroneous opinion on how much control and selectivity a "phertographer" can exercise compared to a painter. Why is holding on to her ignorant opinion, and promoting it in her podcasts, so important to her? Why is defending non-photographer and non-painter Rand's opinion on the subject more important than learning something about the subject from a very knowledgeable photographer and painter?

J

[Brant Gaede]

If you say it's art you'll get no argument from me. If you say it isn't art, it isn't if it's your work. I'll take your word for it. If you say X's work isn't art and X says it is, he wins the "argument," not you.

--Brant

if you don't like it don't like it--or buy it

this has nothing to do with esthetics, only labels; go ahead and esthetics away, just avoid the fascism; there is no such thing as an Objectivist Esthetics connected logically even to Orthodox Objectivism; or psychology or history or chemistry or physics

[Roger Bissell]

Comrade Sonia now has two books available from Amazon.com. The second is apparently based upon the first, which is her dissertation. I have not studied the descriptions closely, let alone ordered and read the books, so I can't recommend or even say much helpful about them.

Here are the amazon links:

http://www.amazon.com/Better-good-than-lucky-Aristotelian/dp/1243632054/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1387229567&sr=8-2&keywords=diana+hsieh

http://www.amazon.com/Responsibility-Luck-Defense-Praise-Blame/dp/1484163192/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387229764&sr=8-1&keywords=diana+hsieh

[Roger Bissell]

OK, here's the blurb for her newer book:

Does the pervasive influence of luck in life mean that people cannot be held responsible for their choices? Do people lack the control required to justify moral praise and blame? In his famous article "Moral Luck," philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons. He claims that we intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we praise and blame people for their actions, the outcomes of those actions, and their characters--even though shaped by forces beyond their control, i.e., by luck. This is the "problem of moral luck." Philosopher Diana Hsieh argues that this attack on moral judgment rests on a faulty view of control, as well as other errors. By developing Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility, Hsieh explains the sources and limits of a person's responsibility for what he does, what he produces, and who he is. Ultimately, she shows that moral judgments are not undermined by luck. In addition, this book explores the nature of moral agency and free will, the purpose of moral judgment, causation in tort and criminal law, the process of character development, and more.

[Jonathan]

From what I've read of the Comrade's views on luck and responsibility in the past, I would imagine that she does a very good and thorough job on the subject, but, personally, I don't think I'd find it to be very interesting. Discussing the idea of luck seems to be kind of an elementary school-level subject.

J

[Selene]

J.

I just do not get it.

Photography is a visual art. The selection of what you frame, how you techniquely create within and through your own "eye" and the lens...

Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, is back to the subject of "phertography" (that's how she pronounces it), and whether or not it can quality as art.

Tell me this is not art:

http://photo.net/photodb/slideshow?user_id=1242497

[Brant Gaede]

Love the horseys

--Brant

neigh!

[Jonathan]

J.

I just do not get it.

Photography is a visual art. The selection of what you frame, how you techniquely create within and through your own "eye" and the lens...

Yeah, I don't get it either. I can't comprehend her returning to the subject while claiming that it's not an important issue, especially with her past of having totally had a panty meltdown over my attempts to educate her on the subject.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Photography is art.

Rand was wrong on that one.

Lots of odd things can be art.

Hell, posting on a forum is quite an art form at times.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Adam,

Photography is art.

Rand was wrong on that one.

Lots of odd things can be art.

Hell, posting on a forum is quite an art form at times.

Michael

"A selective recreation of reality according to the [poster's] metaphysical value judgments."

--Brant