• Announcements

    • Kat

      09/05/2011 - No more blogs

      The community blogs on Objectivist Living are not being renewed and will be removed by 9/7/2011. If you have a blog, please make a copy of the text and paste it into Word to keep for your files.

Ellen Stuttle

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ellen Stuttle

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Interests Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music
  1. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    Jonathan, What do you mean by "aesthetic judgments" in the above post? Near as I can tell, you're once again mixing together moral judgments, "sense-of-life" responses, and technical appraisals. Ellen
  2. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    I think that even if everything you describe Rand as doing were fully accurate (and I don't think it is), none of it would add up to anything as proof of your assertions concerning Rand's intent in forming her theory of art. Ellen
  3. Judgmental Aesthetics Time!

    Jonathan, I think that you've become as bad as or even worse than Ayn Rand (or Nathaniel Branden) ever was at making unsupportable psychological assertions. Just how would you propose to prove that Rand set out to devise a theory of art which would give her "a weapon of moral and psychological condemnation," etc.? Ellen
  4. Introducing the Stephen Boydstun Corner

    Belated congratulations, Stephen. And a wish for many more long, happy years of unfolding the bloom. I like the photo. Ellen
  5. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    Merlin, Although the particular effects you mention aren't equal in the two directions, the examples aren't examples of one-way causality. There are reactions in both cases. The situation with the hitter's bat is further complexified by the batter's being engaged in intentional action, and, being able to assess how far the ball will go, and able to feel the impact through the bat, interrupts completion of the forward swing and drops the bat in order to head off running. Ellen
  6. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    Ixnay on the "with some motion between them." That's the fudge which you slip in there in order to claim that "blocking" of a photon separated from the source has an effect on the source. Ellen
  7. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    Roger, That paragraph of itself is a mind-twister for trying to figure out both what you think is happening in photon emission and how you think of "interactive" causality. I'll start with your wording "photons carry energy away" and pose a couple comparison cases. 1) Consider a hair shed by one of your body's hair follicles. Would you say of the hair that it's carrying a filamentous extrusion away from your body? I think not, since the hair just is the filamentous extrusion which has been shed. It isn't like a little vehicle or medium transporting that extrusion. Similarly, the emitted photon just is the energy being emitted. 2) On the other hand, contrast with what happens if you apply a soapy lather to your face and then rinse water. There, the soapy lather loosens and enfolds oil particles, flakes of dead skin, and detritus which has settled on your face. Then the rinse water carries away the soapy conglomerate. In both cases, you could accurately say that your body has "less" of something. (The description isn't accurate of photon emission, but for the moment I'll leave aside discussing what really happens in photon emission.) In the first case, your body is minus one hair - maybe temporarily, depending on whether or not a replacement hair grows. In the second case, your facial skin is divested for awhile of X amount of accumulated gunk. By my understanding of "interactive causal effect," you could also speak accurately of two-way effects occurring, for a time, in both cases. In the case of the shed hair, there are electrostatic effects. Those could be such that the hair, although no longer anchored in the hair follicle, clings to other hairs or to your skin (or clothes). If the hair does fall wholly or partly away from your body, there are brief slight air-current effects, and there's a minute redistribution of gravitational interaction. Let's suppose, for the sake of a maximally uncluttered comparison to an emitted photon, that the hair is shed when you're outdoors and where a breeze carries it well away from your bodily proximity. It's now beyond the range of its having any electrostatic, air current production, or gravitational effect on your body. Would you say that it still has an interactive effect because your body is now minus that hair? Likewise in the case of your having washed your face with soapy lather and then rinsed off the soapy conglomerate, would you say that the accumulated gunk which is now no longer on your skin still has an interactive effect on your skin by virtue of its having been carried away from your skin? Ellen
  8. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    No, the "blocking" of the photons isn't "just like someone pulling in front of [your] moving vehicle [thus blocking] the continuation of the action of [your] vehicle." What happens to the photons isn't blocking anything you're doing, including emitting photons. It's having no interactive effect on you. Ellen PS: Roger, if you're going to delete posts of yours, would you leave a place marker (like the word "deleted" replacing the original text) so you don't muck up the numbering of posts? Also, is your software glitch so extensive you can't give a URL for a post you're referencing?
  9. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    All you're blocking is the stream of photons. With the archer example, the only sense in which you would be blocking the archer's "action" isn't a physics sense but an intentional sense. If the archer was trying to hit some target and you stepped in front of the arrow, you'd have prevented the archer's intention from being realized, but stars have no intentions. (Note, the star example I posed was a star which had died before you were born, hence wasn't still emitting any visible radiation. Not that this makes a difference to the analysis, but I thought the example might bring home the kind of implications your "blocking" idea leads to. Similarly, to repeat the other example I gave, it implies that part of your action has been blocked all your life because of absorption of photons emitted by your body.) Ellen
  10. Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

    Your post was addressed to Tony, but I'll interject that I wasn't paying attention to more than occasional snatches of discussions about the Kantian Sublime. I've started to look into that subject, and I don't agree with the idea that "Rand's art qualifies as great examples." Later. Ellen
  11. Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

    LOL at that interpretive mash-up. I recommend rereading the first three essays of The Romantic Manifesto and trying to understand what Rand was saying. Ellen
  12. Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

  13. Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

    Repeat, what you want to call "the essential issue of aesthetics" is a side issue to what Rand was doing, which was presenting a theory of the nature, source, and need for art. (I do think it's odd that when she published her essays in book form, she subtitled the book "A Philosophy of Literature," since the thesis she presents has applicability to all art forms, not just to literature.) Ellen
  14. Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

    There's no "argument from incredulity" whatsoever involved in saying that an entity, be it a painting or anything else, can't do what that entity can't do. Ellen
  15. JARS V15 N2 - December 2015

    Quite. Ellen