Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Ellen Stuttle]

You need an elaborate essay for esthetics because you need to put so much clothes on the essential fallacy of it all to hide the fallacy. There's a reason Rand didn't need to write an ITOE to put reason into her philosophy because it was already there as it was already in any philosphy of good science called scientific method or methodology. If you take away the ITOE you take nothing away from the scientific method for it contributed nothing to it in the first place. In that sense her epistemology is quite like her esthetics--it doesn't travel. It's unto itself. [....]

Brant,

Now you're talking about something different than you initially said, [*] which was that one has to explain calling aesthetics a branch of philosophy. I gather that your point was along your usual lines, which I admit to not following, about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not really being "Objectivism" as you use that term.

Ellen

[*] And I see that you've added to the initial post, after I responded to it.

[anthony]

"From whatever its earliest genesis in man's brain and mind, (I would guess, pattern-recognition, harmony, balance, regularity, contrast.. etc etc, ultimately for his survival) beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.
Neither mystic nor subjective".

-------------------------------------

J: Yet again, you selectively quote and reply, to whatever suits your intent. You 'missed' this above part from my previous post.

But it's a theory of mine, not "proof". For that, for empirical "proof", a study of the science of aesthetics is essential. Logic is the validation of facts which can be formed into concepts. Yes?

Your unfounded accusations of "irrational" come from your insistence on 'logic', with no recourse to concepts. Theory of art IS conceptual - is largely of the consciousness of artist and viewer- and you're trying to make it empirical.

In Rand's entire TRM, "esthetics" is mentioned a handful of times. Check the Index.

Here's one: "The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. ...such principles are defined by the science of esthetics, a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally".

Get it? Though she recognized its importance, it did not influence her theory on art.

For more, on definitions of 'aesthetics', you can check my earlier post.

-----

Obviously, beauty has value to man. In its natural form, and in art. And the variations of perceptions of physical beauty -of face and form-probably have cultural/genetic roots.

So - "one size doesn't fit all", which seems to be your notion of "objective".

For all their parallels, 'universalism' is not precisely equal to objectivism. I have often thought you conflate the two.

There are no "subjective" values.

If one follows the reasoning from "man's life as the standard" - to "each man's life as the purpose" (the balance which an objectivist has to hold in mind)...

to the distinction between intrinsicism (value without consciousness, i.e. without valuer), and subjectivism (value independent of reality...

...you arrive at the principle that an individual's values are contextful (of his knowledge, level of rationality,etc) --but are NOT "subjective".

From life as the ultimate value, down to one's own life and its preservation and flourishing -- the value system is unvarying -- as *objective* as is reality. See?

"Subjective value" is a contradiction in terms. (I'd think).

[Brant Gaede]

Artists do not recreate reality. However they do elicit the same subjective response with their art work that the actual object would have produced in the observer. Artists are playing our subjectivity, like a musician plays his instrument. Some do so brilliantly. I found Vermeer to be a master of not only what we see, but more importantly - how we see.

"Subjective" is usually just another word for something we haven't made objective. Or don't yet understand - which is the same thing. The other side of the false dichotomy from "mystical". Artists, in fact, are "playing" our objective need for beauty, the sugar coating over the 'pill' of an artwork's content, which again, is just as 'real' and objective.

I think of aesthetics as the artfulness and science of beauty, and it has been often used interchangeably with "art" in this discussion, often incorrectly.

Evidently, man needs beauty - and that fact has guided artists' creativity. But it exists in nature too. It's the distinction between the metaphysical 'man made', and the 'given'. Great art will have great aesthetic quality. Though not all that is fine, aesthetically, is art. Not all great aesthetic art has great content. Beauty/aesthetics, the artist knows, is what draws the viewer in, holds his attention, and aids the formation of a memorable abstraction in his mind...

From whatever its earliest genesis in man's brain, (I would guess, pattern-recognition, harmony, balance, regularity, etc etc for enjoyment and survival) beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.

Neither mystic nor subjective.

"Guernica" is so beautiful.

So, art is not "a selective recreation of reality." (From the grave [Ayn Rand]: "My bad.")

--Brant

Tony and his tar baby

[Jonathan]

"Subjective" is usually just another word for something we haven't made objective.

No, it's not. The subjective cannot be "made objective." Your subjective desire to believe that your subjective judgments are objective will never be "made objective." You've tried wishing and whiny, and pretending and posing, and equivocating and evading, and none of it has worked. Your subjective tastes and judgments are still just as subjective as they always were and always will be.

Or don't yet understand - which is the same thing.

Wrong. We do understand (well, I mean "we" to be those other than you) subjective taste and judgment. It is that which includes content contributed by the individual's consciousness.

The other side of the false dichotomy from "mystical". Artists, in fact, are "playing" our objective need for beauty, the sugar coating over the 'pill' of an artwork's content, which again, is just as 'real' and objective.I think of aesthetics as the artfulness and science of beauty, and it has been often used interchangeably with "art" in this discussion, often incorrectly. Evidently, man needs beauty - and that fact has guided artists' creativity.

I don't why you keep focusing on beauty. It's one small element of aesthetics, and it's all but irrelevant to the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics. I wonder how many times we'll have to repeat things for you until they sink in.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember if I've ever asked you if you have any type of reading comprehension impairment or other cognitive issues. Do you? If so, I apologize for arguing with you so aggressively. I've been operating under the assumption that you were mentally "normal" but just stubborn, but if you're impaired I'll try to exercise some patience.

But it exists in nature too.

Indeed, the field of aesthetics applies to nature, which is why Rand's definition of "esthetics" is flawed. She mistakenly limited it to "the study of art." Her doing so is just one of many indicators of how little she knew of the subject and its history. Her Objectivist Esthetics is really not much more than her personal theory of literature and some novice hunches about the other art forms and the nature of art. Some of her hunches were brilliant, and some were silly and irrational. Many sound kind of good until tested in reality.

...beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.

I agree that beauty can be understood scientifically and philosophically. An objective identification of beauty is that it is a form of subjective response.

Neither mystic nor subjective.

Prove it. Objectively identify objective standards of beauty, and demonstrate the objective method of judging items to be beautiful.

Also, please give us some example of subjective judgments of the past which were "made objective." I'd like to understand where you imagine that you got this idea that your subjective judgments can become objective.

J

[anthony]

Ah. "Prove it".
Art does not exist in objective reality. It can't be identified (as even the artist didn't know what he was doing). One's senses cannot be trusted. Individual concepts derived from art are subjective. Rely on authority to tell you the 'facts'. Depend on experts to tell you the good from the bad. Moral judgment of art is uncool.

The first guy who painted on a cave wall must have been revered as god-like by his fellows, or soon killed as a devil: only the Supreme Power can create, after all. Nothing much has changed - it would appear art is the remaining bastion of mysticism for the secular.

Look at most present art as a reflection of today's society --and as the progenitor of man's ideas and values - and one can stop wondering why societies of the West have sunken to such collectivist, skeptical and cynical depths.

J: Do you have any agreement with Objectivist epistemology, metaphysics and ethics? If you did, you'd recognise the Romanticist theory as consistent with all of it. If you don't, that's where this criticism should begin.

[anthony]

Artists do not recreate reality. However they do elicit the same subjective response with their art work that the actual object would have produced in the observer. Artists are playing our subjectivity, like a musician plays his instrument. Some do so brilliantly. I found Vermeer to be a master of not only what we see, but more importantly - how we see. [Kolker]

-----------------------------------------

"Subjective" is usually just another word for something we haven't made objective. Or don't yet understand - which is the same thing. The other side of the false dichotomy from "mystical". Artists, in fact, are "playing" our objective need for beauty, the sugar coating over the 'pill' of an artwork's content, which again, is just as 'real' and objective.

I think of aesthetics as the artfulness and science of beauty, and it has been often used interchangeably with "art" in this discussion, often incorrectly.

Evidently, man needs beauty - and that fact has guided artists' creativity. But it exists in nature too. It's the distinction between the metaphysical 'man made', and the 'given'. Great art will have great aesthetic quality. Though not all that is fine, aesthetically, is art. Not all great aesthetic art has great content. Beauty/aesthetics, the artist knows, is what draws the viewer in, holds his attention, and aids the formation of a memorable abstraction in his mind...

From whatever its earliest genesis in man's brain, (I would guess, pattern-recognition, harmony, balance, regularity, etc etc for enjoyment and survival) beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.

Neither mystic nor subjective.

"Guernica" is so beautiful.

So, art is not "a selective recreation of reality." (From the grave [Ayn Rand]: "My bad.")

--Brant

Tony and his tar baby

But Guernica is filled, choc-a-block, with selected referents from reality! (Nothing exists in the subconscious, which weren't at one stage conscious and consciously perceived). Pablo either saw the aftermath of the battle, or maybe pulled those elements out of his imagination - I wouldn't know.

[william.scherk]

Art does not exist in objective reality. It can't be identified (as even the artist didn't know what he was doing). One's senses cannot be trusted. Individual concepts derived from art are subjective. Rely on authority to tell you the 'facts'. Depend on experts to tell you the good from the bad. Moral judgment of art is uncool.

This is fallacious. The sarcasm does not validate the opposite corollary in the set. See what happens when the statements are straightforward positive assertions (without the irony):

• Art does exist in objective reality
• Art can be identified (the artist knew what he was doing)
• Individual concepts derived from art are objective
• Rely on (not-authority) to tell the 'facts'
• Rely on (non-experts) to tell the good art from the bad art
• Moral judgments of art are cool

I agree with 1. It seems obvious that art exists.

I agree to a point with 2. Art can be identified (as art) by a variety of criteria. We can guess what an artist thought he was doing in some circumstances. The correctness of our guesses can increase with study of the artwork and the utterances if any of the artist. Sometimes our guesses are not rightly falsifiable. Consider this work of early art:

Now with your 3, Tony, you can make guesses about the concepts intended by the artist/s. You can identify and name them, and show how they are derived from the artwork.**

With your 4, I can't make it work without reformulating it somehow: we don't yet have criteria on what/whom to rely on to tell the 'facts.' In some senses -- like dating the cave art above, and in comparing it to other survivals -- we can find out more about the culture in which the art was made. We can find facts about the materials and progress of technique over time.

The first guy who painted on a cave wall must have been revered as god-like by his fellows, or soon killed as a devil: only the Supreme Power can create, after all. Nothing much has changed - it would appear art is the remaining bastion of mysticism for the secular.

Why only two possible states for the very first painter on cave walls? -- it doesn't make sense to reduce to a binary. What if that first painting was a thing to be respected, and its maker imitated? What if much discussion around the time of its making was devoted to practical matters, esthetic appreciation (eg, Trog gets thumbs up for his amazing brushwork from Brog and Dreg and Trag)?

I think it would be obvious to Brog and crew that Trog had with his own means done the deed, and so to invoke spirit birth or death is arbitrary, not grounded in any extant 'facts' about Trog ...

Look at most present art as a reflection of today's society -and as the progenitor of man's ideas- and one can stop wondering why societies of the West have sunken to such collectivist, skeptical and cynical depths.

Well, there you go. It is cool to moralize about "today's society" by calling down 'most present art' as a mirror and incubator of said society's debasement.

How you got from Trog to the art world of today is unclear, though I salute your search for a Romanticist/Romantic body of work that will sustain your own Objectivish spirit. It's like you have a longing for willful, uplifting themes and scenes. Nothing wrong with that, I don't think. And I don't think there is anything wrong with you posting an artwork that rings all your bells. Or even an artwork that rings no bells for you at all. In a thread devoted to art, I would expect many more illustrations of what folks are talking about, grounding the concepts.

Here's an image from the fantastic series of Romance covers from the Maher Art Gallery, each of which fairly bursts with volition.

________________________

** I think you (and I and we) need to be careful, meticulous, alert to confirmation bias, when deriving 'Individual concepts' from particular works of art. To claim that the derived concepts are objective is easy, to demonstrate this takes a lot more work deployed.

Edited July 12, 2014 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ah. "Prove it".

Art does not exist in objective reality. It can't be identified (as even the artist didn't know what he was doing). One's senses cannot be trusted. Individual concepts derived from art are subjective. Rely on authority to tell you the 'facts'. Depend on experts to tell you the good from the bad. Moral judgment of art is uncool.

What is Jonathan asking you to prove? CAN you read at all? Your response is not a response to what you're being asked to do.

The first guy who painted on a cave wall must have been revered as god-like by his fellows, or soon killed as a devil: only the Supreme Power can create, after all. Nothing much has changed - it would appear art is the remaining bastion of mysticism for the secular.

I recommend some research on the cave art. It was a communal endeavor extending over generations, requiring group effort in collecting materials and assisting with holding torches for lighting - and apparently planned to have a sequential effect as a person moved deeper into the cave.

J: Do you have any agreement with Objectivist epistemology, metaphysics and ethics? If you did, you'd recognise the Romanticist theory as consistent with all of it. If you don't, that's where this criticism should begin.

Jonathan has said a number of times that he thinks that Rand's esthetics fails the requirements of her metaphysics and epistemology.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Duplicate posting from the "Literary History..." thread.

A question for Tony:

Do the drawings of Cyrus Paltons in post #22 [on the other thread] exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's an image from the fantastic series of Romance covers from the Maher Art Gallery, each of which fairly bursts with volition.

________________________

** I think you (and I and we) need to be careful, meticulous, alert to confirmation bias, when deriving 'Individual concepts' from particular works of art. To claim that the derived concepts are objective is easy, to demonstrate this takes a lot more work deployed.

That is not all it bursts with.

That young fellow must have a major stiffening of the groin.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Ah. "Prove it".

Yes, prove it. Follow Objectivism's epistemological requirements, and prove it.

Art does not exist in objective reality. It can't be identified (as even the artist didn't know what he was doing). One's senses cannot be trusted. Individual concepts derived from art are subjective. Rely on authority to tell you the 'facts'. Depend on experts to tell you the good from the bad. Moral judgment of art is uncool.

The first guy who painted on a cave wall must have been revered as god-like by his fellows, or soon killed as a devil: only the Supreme Power can create, after all. Nothing much has changed - it would appear art is the remaining bastion of mysticism for the secular.

Look at most present art as a reflection of today's society --and as the progenitor of man's ideas and values - and one can stop wondering why societies of the West have sunken to such collectivist, skeptical and cynical depths.

Try to focus, Tony. Try to be rational. Here's what I challenged you to do: "Prove it. Objectively identify objective standards of beauty, and demonstrate the objective method of judging items to be beautiful. Also, please give us some example of subjective judgments of the past which were 'made objective.' I'd like to understand where you imagine that you got this idea that your subjective judgments can become objective."

Your panicking above and going off on one of your nutty, irrelevant rants/chants is not a good substitute for proof of your position. The Objectivist epistemology values logic and reason, not irrationality, evasion and stalling. Please apply logic and reason to your assertions about beauty, and prove them.

J: Do you have any agreement with Objectivist epistemology, metaphysics and ethics? If you did, you'd recognise the Romanticist theory as consistent with all of it. If you don't, that's where this criticism should begin.

I'm asking you to PRACTICE the Objectivist Epistemology! Objectivism sees the process of "objectivity" as the act of volitionally applying a clearly identified objective standard of judgment using logic and reason.

Please apply that process to the concept of beauty. Identify the objective standard that is used to judge beauty, and demonstrate the use of logic and reason in judging entities to be beautiful. Give specific examples of logically applying the rationally identified standard of beauty to various entities that exist in realty. Practice the Objectivist virtue of backing up your assertions with proof. Don't evade the challenge again. Don't babble on about what you irrationally imagine the consequences must be of your not being able to prove your assertions. Focus on the task and prove your assertions or admit that you can't.

Why is it so hard to get certain Objectivists to practice Objectivism?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Here's an image from the fantastic series of Romance covers from the Maher Art Gallery, each of which fairly bursts with volition.

________________________

** I think you (and I and we) need to be careful, meticulous, alert to confirmation bias, when deriving 'Individual concepts' from particular works of art. To claim that the derived concepts are objective is easy, to demonstrate this takes a lot more work deployed.

That is not all it bursts with.

That young fellow must have a major stiffening of the groin.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ah, I'd call that masturbatory art. I like the depiction of the youngsters getting ready to fuck each others' lights out. I don't like overt, visual porn. If this were the late 1930s we could call this a new discovery of the work of a famous, ancient artist (and get away with it?).

--Brant

Vermeer, anybody?

[anthony]

"Subjective" is usually just another word for something we haven't made objective.

No, it's not. The subjective cannot be "made objective." Your subjective desire to believe that your subjective judgments are objective will never be "made objective." You've tried wishing and whiny, and pretending and posing, and equivocating and evading, and none of it has worked. Your subjective tastes and judgments are still just as subjective as they always were and always will be.

Or don't yet understand - which is the same thing.

Wrong. We do understand (well, I mean "we" to be those other than you) subjective taste and judgment. It is that which includes content contributed by the individual's consciousness.

The other side of the false dichotomy from "mystical". Artists, in fact, are "playing" our objective need for beauty, the sugar coating over the 'pill' of an artwork's content, which again, is just as 'real' and objective.I think of aesthetics as the artfulness and science of beauty, and it has been often used interchangeably with "art" in this discussion, often incorrectly. Evidently, man needs beauty - and that fact has guided artists' creativity.

I don't why you keep focusing on beauty. It's one small element of aesthetics, and it's all but irrelevant to the Objectivist PseudoEsthetics. I wonder how many times we'll have to repeat things for you until they sink in.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember if I've ever asked you if you have any type of reading comprehension impairment or other cognitive issues. Do you? If so, I apologize for arguing with you so aggressively. I've been operating under the assumption that you were mentally "normal" but just stubborn, but if you're impaired I'll try to exercise some patience.

But it exists in nature too.

Indeed, the field of aesthetics applies to nature, which is why Rand's definition of "esthetics" is flawed. She mistakenly limited it to "the study of art." Her doing so is just one of many indicators of how little she knew of the subject and its history. Her Objectivist Esthetics is really not much more than her personal theory of literature and some novice hunches about the other art forms and the nature of art. Some of her hunches were brilliant, and some were silly and irrational. Many sound kind of good until tested in reality.

...beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.

I agree that beauty can be understood scientifically and philosophically. An objective identification of beauty is that it is a form of subjective response.

Neither mystic nor subjective.

Prove it. Objectively identify objective standards of beauty, and demonstrate the objective method of judging items to be beautiful.

Also, please give us some example of subjective judgments of the past which were "made objective." I'd like to understand where you imagine that you got this idea that your subjective judgments can become objective.

J

For my response, you will have to turn back a page to my new post, #477. I can't understand why that happened! Weird.

[anthony]

Duplicate posting from the "Literary History..." thread.

A question for Tony:

Do the drawings of Cyrus Paltons in post #22 [on the other thread] exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

How can you ask? Of course! these must be the highest achievement of Romanticist art, brimful of volitional consciousness.

The fact that the artist's illustrations were of stories that the 9 yo Alyssa found delightful and heroic - proves me right.

No?

Aren't you confusing the visual and the verbal a bit, Ellen?

[Jonathan]

For my response, you will have to turn back a page to my new post, #477. I can't understand why that happened! Weird.

Your post #477 is nothing but more of your non-sequiturs, unsupported assertions, capricious musings, subjective opinions, cluttered thinking, self-contradictory nonsense, and evasive distractions.

J

[anthony]

"From whatever its earliest genesis in man's brain and mind, (I would guess, pattern-recognition, harmony, balance, regularity, contrast.. etc etc, ultimately for his survival) beauty has identity and can be understood, both scientifically and philosophically.

Neither mystic nor subjective".

-------------------------------------

J: Yet again, you selectively quote and reply, to whatever suits your intent. You 'missed' this above part from my previous post.

But it is a theory of mine, not "proof". For that, for empirical "proof", a study of the science of aesthetics is essential.

Logic is the validation of facts which can then be formed into concepts. Yes?

Your unfounded accusations of "irrational" come from your insistence on 'logic', with no recourse to concepts. Theory of art IS conceptual - is largely of the consciousness of artist and viewer- and you're trying to make it empirical.

In Rand's entire TRM, "esthetics" is mentioned a handful of times. Check the Index.

Here's one: "The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. ...such principles are defined by the science of esthetics, a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally".

Get it? Though she recognized its importance, it did not influence her theory on art.

For more, on definitions of 'aesthetics', you can check my earlier post.

-----

Obviously, beauty has value to man. In its natural form, and in art. And the variations of perceptions of physical beauty -of face and form-probably have cultural/genetic roots.

So - "one size doesn't fit all", which seems to be your notion of "objective".

For all their parallels, 'universalism' is not precisely equal to objectivism. I have often thought you conflate the two.

There are no "subjective" values.

If one follows the reasoning from "man's life as the standard" - to "each man's life as the purpose" (the balance which an objectivist has to hold in mind)...

to the distinction between intrinsicism (value without consciousness, i.e. without valuer), and subjectivism (value independent of reality...

...you arrive at the principle that an individual's values are contextful (of his knowledge, level of rationality,etc) --but are NOT "subjective".

From life as the ultimate value, down to one's own life and its preservation and flourishing -- the value system is unvarying -- as *objective* as is reality. See?

"Subjective value" is a contradiction in terms. (I'd think).

So you dispute that "subjective" value is a contradiction in terms?

[Brant Gaede]

All values are experienced subjectively and the value of any value goes up and down the scale of valuing. Value is in the head of the valuer. The way to objectivify value is to remove the valuer or replace a man with man the concept only. Thus you can say man values food, water and air or even art. Man values sex. (All my "man" stuff includes woman [ironically wo-man goes into (or adds on to) man but man does not go into (or adds on to) woman]. Too bad guy. Solution? Get a broad, even if you have to go abroad.)

--Brant

(skjfeo[kloig])--kdfkj(kioijoi)--ojojo(dfijfoib[kmlf]!?)

[Jonathan]

So you dispute that "subjective" value is a contradiction in terms?

Yes.

Your valuing your "theories" without having any proof to back them up is an example of subjective values.

Objectivism's concept of objectivity is that it is the volitional application of logic and reason. You value things despite choosing to abandon logic and reason. Therefore those things which you value via your nutty process of abandoning logic and reason cannot be said to be objective.

A famous person said, "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value."

Tony, do you think that she was wrong? Or do you think that someone's valuing altruism and death must be objective?

J

[anthony]

So you dispute that "subjective" value is a contradiction in terms?

Yes.

Your valuing your "theories" without having any proof to back them up is an example of subjective values.

Objectivism's concept of objectivity is that it is the volitional application of logic and reason. You value things despite choosing to abandon logic and reason. Therefore those things which you value via your nutty process of abandoning logic and reason cannot be said to be objective.

A famous person said, "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value."

Tony, do you think that she was wrong? Or do you think that someone's valuing altruism and death must be objective?

J

Anything, anything at all, can be made of objective value---in one's consciousness.

The glaring question is: Does it correspond to objective reality and man's nature?

If not, it is a subjective value, which means a disvalue or no value at all.

Look at your quote again. "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value".

It follows, does it not, that people -'altruists' - hold death as their ultimate goal...etc.? Whether they accept or are conscious of that conclusion, or not.

Otherwise, "altruism" is a floating abstraction. (For a principle to exist there must be people who value it and try to practise it).

"Hold" that ideology long and consistently enough, and death will be its outcome - yours or others. And there are more ways of dying than death alone. (Metaphorically).

Define "objective" or "objectivity" wrongly and it all goes wrong.

[Brant Gaede]

Subjective value means no value at all means nonsense. It's fallacious to concretize a category, in this case both for "objective" and "subjective." Pretending you can for the former will not make it true for the latter. That there exists air, food and water does not mean there exists "objective" in the same concrete sense. There is also the need to recognize that Rand the rhetorician is not the same thing as Rand making rational and supportable statements. Rand did not start with "altruism" ending up in "death." She started with "death" and ended up with (her understanding of) "altruism." Then she read it backwards for her "famous person" public consumption, thus avoiding all the necessary detective work of actually studying altruism operating in people and what that really meant and contrasting how political and religious and morality controlling rulers and would-be rulers used and use it and--the philosophers, and making sense of the whole package, to wit: altruistic behavior is the natural sub-category of selfish behavior hijacked by ripping it out of its selfish, overall controlling context--that is, man's need for a social existence of varying sorts depending on what kind of a man. Just as the statists et al. cut a man in two this way, so did Ayn Rand. She simply stood on the other side--the right side--and swung her blade. This is quite excusable because of her experiences under Soviet communism--not realizing the severely delimited data she was working with.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

So you dispute that "subjective" value is a contradiction in terms?

Yes.

Your valuing your "theories" without having any proof to back them up is an example of subjective values.

Objectivism's concept of objectivity is that it is the volitional application of logic and reason. You value things despite choosing to abandon logic and reason. Therefore those things which you value via your nutty process of abandoning logic and reason cannot be said to be objective.

A famous person said, "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value."

Tony, do you think that she was wrong? Or do you think that someone's valuing altruism and death must be objective?

J

Anything, anything at all, can be made of objective value---in one's consciousness.

The glaring question is: Does it correspond to objective reality and man's nature?

If not, it is a subjective value, which means a disvalue or no value at all.

Look at your quote again. "Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value".

It follows, does it not, that people -'altruists' - hold death as their ultimate goal...etc.? Whether they accept or are conscious of that conclusion, or not.

Otherwise, "altruism" is a floating abstraction. (For a principle to exist there must be people who value it and try to practise it).

"Hold" that ideology long and consistently enough, and death will be its outcome - yours or others. And there are more ways of dying than death alone. (Metaphorically).

Define "objective" or "objectivity" wrongly and it all goes wrong.

How about this for a definition:

"Metaphysically, objectivity is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)."

Following that definition of "objectivity," I've asked you, several times, to use reason and logic to prove your unsupported assertions about beauty and other aesthetic judgments. You cannot do so. Therefore your aesthetic judgments do not have a basis in logic and reason -- they are not arrived at by volitionally applying an objective standard of judgment using logic and reason. They are not "independent of any perceiver's consciousness," but are completely dependent upon only your consciousness. They are, by Rand's definition, as well as everyone else's, purely subjective responses and judgments.

But, let me guess: you have your own nutty interpretation of what "objectivity" means, right? It's not about using logic and reason, but is about Tony looking at something and just being certain that he knows his tastes and opinions are right and objective without having to apply logic and reason? Proof is something to be scoffed at, because all of Tony's judgments are "axiomatic" despite being illogical and irrational?

J

[anthony]

Well, J: You can ask me questions till you're blue in the face - but I'm not here to satisfy them. I am not a scientist who studies the cause and effect of the appreciation of beauty by humans, but even so I offered some ideas of mine, evolving from Early Man.

"Reason and logic" to "prove" beauty? You are joking, of course - or else insulting my intelligence. All I can surmise is, it will take induction and deduction, and much scientific observation of human subjects to come to some partial conclusions.

But as 'concept', its -effects- are somewhat known. We have a sense of the How?, if not yet the Why?

Man's consciousness evidently reacts in a certain way to beauty - in art, too. (Artists have apparently evolved techniques which tap into this). One's own introspection and observation is invaluable in isolating and understanding it in the abstract.

"Subjective value" is now under the spotlight. I maintain that if man's values can ever be subjective, then so will be his virtues and convictions, and so will be his morality. Probably then, a "subjective" society is what one ends up with.

"Don't speak to me of subjective values!" AR

[Brant Gaede]

Well, J: You can ask me questions till you're blue in the face - but I'm not here to satisfy them. I am not a scientist who studies the cause and effect of the appreciation of beauty by humans, but even so I offered some ideas of mine, evolving from Early Man.

"Reason and logic" to "prove" beauty? You are joking, of course - or else insulting my intelligence. All I can surmise is, it will take induction and deduction, and much scientific observation of human subjects to come to some partial conclusions.

But as 'concept', its -effects- are somewhat known. We have a sense of the How?, if not yet the Why?

Man's consciousness evidently reacts in a certain way to beauty - in art, too. (Artists have apparently evolved techniques which tap into this). One's own introspection and observation is invaluable in isolating and understanding it in the abstract.

"Subjective value" is now under the spotlight. I maintain that if man's values can ever be subjective, then so will be his virtues and convictions, and so will be his morality. Probably then, a "subjective" society is what one ends up with.

"Don't speak to me of subjective values!" AR

Well, Ludwig von Mises did. You objectify subjectivity just as you objectify virtues and convictions. I value a painting. A true statement. An objective statement. I have x virtue. Same thing. Water is a value. A value to whom, why, when and how much is an objective statement about subjectivity in valuing. I value a one Troy ounce gold bullion coin at $1350. Tomorrow I am the only man alive on earth and I have all the gold coins on earth at my feet and all around me. I pick up one as a momento--or not--and walk off never coming back to that place or those coins. $1350 worth of value went to valueless. Of course, being a social animal my own life did the same--no! wait! Is that a woman over there? Run, run, run.

--Brant

SHOUT! SHOUT! SHOUT!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Duplicate posting from the "Literary History..." thread.

A question for Tony:

Do the drawings of Cyrus Paltons in post #22 [on the other thread] exhibit "volitional consciousness"?

Ellen

How can you ask? Of course! these must be the highest achievement of Romanticist art, brimful of volitional consciousness.

The fact that the artist's illustrations were of stories that the 9 yo Alyssa found delightful and heroic - proves me right.

No?

Aren't you confusing the visual and the verbal a bit, Ellen?

What does your answer mean, Tony? Looks to me like it's an evasion - which is what I expected.

I said long ago that I don't think that Rand's categories "Romanticist"/"Naturalist" - which she defined as affirming versus denying volition - apply to visual arts. (And that she's sloppy and historically inaccurate even in what she does with the categorization in literature.) You support her distinction as applied to the visual arts, but dismiss Vermeer's work and the "Rape of the Sabine" statue as exhibiting "voluntary" but not "volitional" action.

You've thus far refused to name a painting which you think does exhibit volition.

And now you're worming off the question with sarcasm as regards the Cyrus drawings.

Ellen

[anthony]

I'm glad you saw the sarcasm, which should have lead you to what is self-evident. The Cyrus illustrations are not art. They are depictions of somebody else's written creation, and lacking any but the most naif stylization. i.e. illustrations.

Second, as you point out, somebody doing something is not sufficient evidence of man being able and equipped to reach goals in a world full of promise and possibility i.e. a man of volitional consciousness.

I have "thus far refused" to give examples -- because the concepts and spirit of what art 'means' have not the least purchase here.

By no means every picture can be categorised in such broad terms as Romanticist/Naturalist (and the couple of dozen paintings that are powerful to me, don't always include the figures of men and women, and my choice may be surprising to some).

But it's by the way, what I value: find your own values - but I only add that it should be truthfully of value to one, selfishly, for as much as possible in recognition of what is there in the picture, disavowing all other influence by others. As one tries to do with any existents in reality.