ObjectivismOnline Objectivist Opposes Objectivism!

[George H. Smith]

I am beginning to understand how the religions of the world spilt into various sects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Beginning to understand? The schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church of Objectivism and the Western Reformed Branch happened in 1968.

Ghs

[caroljane]

I am beginning to understand how the religions of the world spilt into various sects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Beginning to understand? The schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church of Objectivism and the Western Reformed Branch happened in 1968.

Ghs

These schisms are all, always, about personalities. In every one we see the triumph of individualism.

[Brant Gaede]

I am beginning to understand how the religions of the world spilt into various sects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Beginning to understand? The schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church of Objectivism and the Western Reformed Branch happened in 1968.

Ghs

These schisms are all, always, about personalities. In every one we see the triumph of individualism.

"Individualism" doesn't have to be rational. Even every baby born represents that "triumph." Objectivism has yet to represent it by the use of it, generally speaking. The real triumph of individualism is using cognition rationally for rationality cannot be farmed out in the basic sense of it. There is no group think and irrationality may come with bad results. Good results and bad results can happen anyway because of acts of God or outlier events--that sort of thing. In 1973 my brain told me it would be rational to go to LA if I could. I couldn't. If I had I'd be dead today. Never mind the details.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I am beginning to understand how the religions of the world spilt into various sects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Beginning to understand? The schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church of Objectivism and the Western Reformed Branch happened in 1968.

Ghs

These schisms are all, always, about personalities. In every one we see the triumph of individualism.

"Individualism" doesn't have to be rational. Even every baby born represents that "triumph." Objectivism has yet to represent it by the use of it, generally speaking. The real triumph of individualism is using cognition rationally for rationality cannot be farmed out in the basic sense of it. There is no group think and irrationality may come with bad results. Good results and bad results can happen anyway because of acts of God or outlier events--that sort of thing. In 1973 my brain told me it would be rational to go to LA if I could. I couldn't. If I had I'd be dead today. Never mind the details.

--Brant

Never mind the details??? How can you know you would be dead if you had gone to LA in 1973? Was there an earthquake or something?

Carol

I mind the details

If I could have died when I wanted to be dead, I would surely be dead

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you are being too gracious to those young whippersnappers who ought to have more respect for you.I think you should tie on your sunbonnet and grab your hockey stick and sort them out,

I don't expect them to respect me, but to respect reality. The sad thing is that not only do some of these people -- starting with Hsieh and spreading to those who follow her lead -- think that they can do aesthetics with no knowledge of its history, but they also seem to believe that they can speak intelligently and in the name of Objectivism without even bothering to look up Rand's thoughts on the subject at hand.

That said, the only person who I'd be willing to sunbonnet up for is this Eiuol idiot. As far as I'm concerned, there's no crime in anyone at OO misunderstand Rand's ideas, or even in their opposing them when they think they're defending them. But when someone takes an action to prevent others' ideas from being heard, I lose all respect for him. It's intellectually dishonest and weak.

J

[caroljane]

Jonathan, you are being too gracious to those young whippersnappers who ought to have more respect for you.I think you should tie on your sunbonnet and grab your hockey stick and sort them out,

I don't expect them to respect me, but to respect reality. The sad thing is that not only do some of these people -- starting with Hsieh and spreading to those who follow her lead -- think that they can do aesthetics with no knowledge of its history, but they also seem to believe that they can speak intelligently and in the name of Objectivism without even bothering to look up Rand's thoughts on the subject at hand.

That said, the only person who I'd be willing to sunbonnet up for is this Eiuol idiot. As far as I'm concerned, there's no crime in anyone at OO misunderstand Rand's ideas, or even in their opposing them when they think they're defending them. But when someone takes an action to prevent others' ideas from being heard, I lose all respect for him. It's intellectually dishonest and weak.

J

Euoil is indeed a puffed-up self-important ignoramus. But who knows who he takes his orders from? Unlike OL, Oonline seems to be owned by nobody and everybody.

[Jonathan]

Another puffed-up self-important aesthetic ignoramus over there is softwareNerd. Check out this post of his, from last year, in which he hasn't the slightest clue about what Rand's views were on the subjects being discussed, and he thought that I was somehow misrepresenting her by quoting her! At least he had lightened up on his practice of deleting my posts by then.

J

[caroljane]

Another puffed-up self-important aesthetic ignoramus over there is softwareNerd. Check out this post of his, from last year, in which he hasn't the slightest clue about what Rand's views were on the subjects being discussed, and he thought that I was somehow misrepresenting her by quoting her! At least he had lightened up on his practice of deleting my posts by then.

J

Well, it appears they have free rein to decide what gets published. But again, by whose authority? Straight from Peikioff, or what?

[Xray]

Ok, but Jonathan made a statement about Objectivist Esthetics, so if I can make a case from Rand's writings then that should be that. I actually agree with him (qua truth), but I think you can quote Rand to support either position. I ought to double check that by rereading The Romantic Manifesto, but the fact is I don't have a high enough level of interest in arguing esthetic theory to make such a project of it.

This way he gets to answer objections here, since they're not letting him do it on OO.

"Being able to quote Rand to support either position" probably indicates that she contradicted herself in her writings on the subject.

That's why quoting from an author to support a certain position is often fruitless if the debate opponent can quote from the same author something that supports the opposite position.

[edited for correcting typo]

[Xray]

In 1973 my brain told me it would be rational to go to LA if I could. I couldn't. If I had I'd be dead today. Never mind the details.

--Brant

Never mind the details??? How can you know you would be dead if you had gone to LA in 1973? Was there an earthquake or something?

Carol

I mind the details

I too mind the details and would like to hear more.

Angela

(Curious as always )

[Xray]

... you get the impression that they think that Objectivism very fragile, or at least that their ability to defend it against informed criticism is severely lacking. It smells like fear.

Such touchiness may have its roots in their thinking of Rand's texts as somehow 'sacred', without fault, which leaves no room for acknowleding criticism, and makes them overly defensive instead.

Re art: I'm currently reading Michel Houllebecq's recent novel "The Map and the Territory" , which centers around the strategic marketing of modern art. Real-life artists (and perfect marketing strategists) like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst figure as characters in the story.

It would interest me what you think of them and their work.

A common argument that I'm getting in private messages now from OO people is that Objectivist standards of aesthetic appraisal are based on the requirements of "man's life" because intelligibility is a cognitive requirement of man's life, and therefore an artwork's intelligibility is the standard by which we judge how good a work of art is.

The problem with that argument is that intelligibility is not the Objectivist standard by which to judge aesthetic greatness, but merely the standard by which to determine whether or not something qualifies as art ("that which ceases to be intelligible ceases to be art"). There's a difference between the standards used in decided if something is or is not art versus deciding if it is good art. A novel or painting can be completely intelligible yet be judged to be aesthetically bad. It can be judged to be ham-fisted and cliched, gushingly sentimental, preachy, clumsy in pace, or artlessy colloquial or pedantic in vocabulary, etc., none of which would make the artwork less intelligible.

One could also put their "intelligibility" premise to the test by showing them some paintings or scultpures of Socialist Realism (or other works painted by artists who have done contract work for totaliatarian regimes) that show man in "heroic" postures.

These paintings /sculptures are perfectly intelligible in their message, even to laypersons not having much knowledge about art.

This one could then contrast by showing some abstract paintings (by world-renowned artists) which to laypersons, are not intelligible at first sight, and ask: "Going by your 'intelligibility' standard, the former would then qualify as art, but the latter would not?"

[Brant Gaede]

In 1973 my brain told me it would be rational to go to LA if I could. I couldn't. If I had I'd be dead today. Never mind the details.

--Brant

Never mind the details??? How can you know you would be dead if you had gone to LA in 1973? Was there an earthquake or something?

Carol

I mind the details

I too mind the details and would like to hear more.

Angela

(Curious as always )

I didn't know it then, but a man was waiting to kill me. He didn't know I was in New Jersey, but would have found me in LA.

--Brant

the roller coaster of life

[anthony]

In just a handful of posts, this has devolved from criticism of two moderators on O.O. - to criticism of the entire forum - to criticism of Rand.

I find this generally gratuitous, unjust and self-serving.

Nobody needs my defence, but in terms of honesty, independence and thoughtfulness, the two guys mentioned (especially softwareNERD) have my respect. They are not infallible, but they are always worth reading and learning from - and they have their own spheres of expertise.

In hundreds of posts, has none of you posted too hastily, and been wrong, in content or

manner? Well, I have, several times. Quoting my (or your) most ludicrous posts out of context would be unfair.

Look at the entire content of the man - or forum - and assess him or it, inductively.

[Jonathan]

Well, it appears they have free rein to decide what gets published. But again, by whose authority? Straight from Peikioff, or what?

They do have the authority to decide what gets published at their own site. I'm fine with that. I'm just amused that they're so lacking in knowledge of Rand's views on aesthetics, and that when they are shown what her actual views are, they deny that those were her views because they've somehow come to their own erroneous opinions of what her aesthetic views must have been based on their (mis?)understandings of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics.

Where do they get this mindset? I don't know. I wouldn't say that they're parroting Peikoff's views, because I'm sure that he'd set them straight on their stupidity just as I've been doing, as would Rand if she were alive. But perhaps their parroting Peikoff's attitude of posing as an authority? Who knows.

J

[Jonathan]

In just a handful of posts, this has devolved from criticism of two moderators on O.O. - to

criticism of the entire forum - to implied criticism of Rand's authoritarianism.

All three are generally gratuitous, unjust and untrue.

Well, speaking only for myself, I'm not criticizing the entire forum. As I said earlier, I've found value in participating there, and I think the place has become much more open to freedom of expression than it used to be.

Nobody needs my defence, but in terms of honesty, independence and thoughtfulness, the two guys

mentioned (especially softwareNERD) have my respect. They are not infallible, but they are always

worth reading and learning from - and they have their own spheres of expertise.

In hundreds of posts, has none of you posted too hastily, and been wrong, in content or

manner? Well, I have, several times. Quoting my (or your) most ludicrous posts out of context

would be unfair.

Look at the entire content of the man - or forum - and assess him or it, inductively.

Sure, I've made mistakes. The difference is that, when shown to be wrong, I quickly admit to my errors and apologize for poor judgments or bad behavior. Also, I've never taken any actions to prevent someone else from being heard. I've never thought that silencing someone who had a different interpretation of Rand's statements than I do is an acceptable way to handle things. If I were a moderator of any exchange of intellectual ideas, it would never occur to me to prevent a view that I didn't like from being heard. So, sorry, Tony, but I can't respect people who don't own up to their errors and make amends.

J

[anthony]

J.

Fair 'nuf. You have showed up some cracks in Objectivism's aesthetics, you aren't over-reacting

to the silly response, and I'm sure you and the mods will get over it. They're good guys, but too

protective of O'ism for the sake of the newbies, I think.

(The desire for O'ism to be absolutely faultless, I can understand, but don't cater to. I 'prefer' Ayn Rand as a uniquely brilliant human being, not a demi-goddess.)

I do sense your frustration when countered by instant experts on art - on the strength of a partial understanding of TRM - when it's been your life study. An overly-deliberate rigidity in artistic appreciation (worse - in artistic creation) is the peril you have brought to the attention of O.Onliners. Quietly, behind the scenes I believe you are succeeding.

[syrakusos]

Another puffed-up self-important aesthetic ignoramus over there is softwareNerd. Check out this post of his ...

Ah, yes, SoftwareNerd, was my moderating moderator.

[syrakusos]

Out of curiosity and something akin to grace, I'm actually going to read his DIM book ...

I have the same intention, if only to get the bad taste out of my mouth from listening to Peikoff's lectures on DIM.

Sorry... so exactly how many angels can dance on a pin?

[syrakusos]

"Being able to quote Rrand to support either position" probably indicates that she contradicted herself in her writings on the subject.

For shame! You will never be allowed to post on five of the seven popular discussion boards for capital-O Objectivists.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry... so exactly how many angels can dance on a pin?

Michael,

Heh.

So how does discussing angels square with "we Objectivists"?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Another puffed-up self-important aesthetic ignoramus over there is softwareNerd. Check out this post of his ...

Ah, yes, SoftwareNerd, was my moderating moderator.

Why can't art be "technical" rather than what she called "creative"? Rand is being circular. She starts with a definition that can exclude one of these and include another. Let me say it twice: she starts with a definition which must be therefore implicitly ideological at the very least. What she is really being is tribal. (Don't we know there is [are] an Objectivist tribe?) Objectivist Aesthetics! Induction can be used to help validate deduction and deduction can be used to help validate induction if they both used together. Deduction sans induction is circular and induction sans deduction is data scattered all over the place for it must be classified and stored to be used or just reclassified for different or better utility. Much of the argumentative power of Rand's mind came from deductive reasoning. Using that she could bulldoze her way through almost any discussion of interest to her respecting her ideas. Regardless, she was not an aesthetician but an Objectivist aesthetician, but since there is no logical link between the two the link is arbitrary and a contradiction in terms. One cannot inform the other the way the metaphysics informs the epistemology informs the ethics and finally the politics for there is an existing logical link between all four which is the natural state of human individualism which is the real Objectivism. They aren't arbitrary. An Objectivist aesthetics is no more Objectivism than an Objectivist physics, chemistry, sciences generally, sociology, psychology, economics, etc. Being rational is both Objectivism and supra-Objectivism. When one says Objectivist metaphysics the epistemology, ethics and politics get necessarily pulled into the discussion, not all that other stuff; not even aesthetics. You want aesthetics, go study it. Think about it. But suck on this: "Piss Christ" and "Atlas Shrugged" will be in the same boat. If that pisses you off, go study something else.

--Brant

[Xray]

For shame! You will never be allowed to post on five of the seven popular discussion boards for capital-O Objectivists.

I suspect the same.

But I've never been attracted to "closed-club-like" places anyway.

[Xray]

I didn't know it then, but a man was waiting to kill me. He didn't know I was in New Jersey, but would have found me in LA.

--Brant

the roller coaster of life

OMG - this makes me shudder! That's the type of 'material' Hemingway could have used for a short story (I've recently reread "The Killers" and the impression still lingers ...)

You really lucked out!!

[Jonathan]

My favorite post on the "Hsieh's Own-Goal..." thread is post # 3 from OO Administrator Jennifer Snow.

It begins with pure smugness and condescension:

"Yeah, this is such an absurd criticism it's hardly worth addressing."

And it ends in Jennifer unintentionally revealing both that she doesn't understand what Rand meant when using the word "beauty," and that she disagrees with Rand's claim that judgments of things like proportions and strong or weak jawlines are objective. Jennifer writes:

"Now, what IS subjective in beauty is things like, what's your hip-to-bust ratio? Do you have long legs? A strong jawline? Stubby hands? These are personal preferences."

I have to wonder if Jennifer has recognized yet that she is in disagreement with Rand. In post # 9 on that thread, I wrote, "Btw, notice that Rand, unlike Hsieh, does not attempt to tie beauty to health. Instead, she discusses judgements of the types of proportions and relationships that Jennifer earlier correctly identified as being subjective."

Jennifer did not respond, so I have to wonder if she read my comment and grasped its meaning. If so, I wonder why she hasn't commented. Has she changed her mind now that she has discovered that she accidentally opposed an aspect of the Objectivist Esthetics?

Now that Jennifer has revealed herself to have been uninformed and mistaken about Rand's views on judgments of things such as proportions and jawlines, is my criticism still "absurd" and "hardly worth addressing," or has Jennifer's intellectual curiosity now been sufficiently stimulated, via her exposing herself as opposing the Objectivist position on beauty, to the point where she might now find the issue worthy of her full attention, and worthy of less of her smugness and condescension?

J

[George H. Smith]

Rand did inject moral judgments into her theory of aesthetics when she analyzed the "sense of life" that a work of art supposedly projects. But she also distinguished this evaluation from the technical execution of a work of art. In this latter sense, we can have "good" art that exhibits a crappy sense of life.

I must confess skepticism about how Rand applied her notion of "sense of life" to art. Years ago I had some horrific online flamewars with Jeff Riggenbach on this very topic. I fear that I am too much of a "subjectivist" in such matters. But I am willing to stick my head out here, since JR no longer posts on OL.