Is this art?


jts

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand's definition of art is:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."

I don't know the difference between a metaphysical value-judgment and an ordinary value-judgment. And I probably don't have a very good handle on what reality is. And I'm not sure what re-creation means.

Are these pictures art? If so, then what are the artist's metaphysical value-judgments? And who is the artist? And how are these pictures a selective recreation of reality?

698.png

Julia_set.jpg

julia271.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ayn Rand's definition of art is:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."

I don't know the difference between a metaphysical value-judgment and an ordinary value-judgment. And I probably don't have a very good handle on what reality is. And I'm not sure what re-creation means.

Are these pictures art? If so, then what are the artist's metaphysical value-judgments? And who is the artist? And how are these pictures a selective recreation of reality?

I don't know the difference either. I think what Rand meant by re-creation is the portrayal of certain things within a medium (painting, music, poetry, etc.)

If those pictures are a selective re-creation of reality, I've never seen that kind of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand's definition of art is:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."

I don't know the difference between a metaphysical value-judgment and an ordinary value-judgment. And I probably don't have a very good handle on what reality is. And I'm not sure what re-creation means.

Are these pictures art? If so, then what are the artist's metaphysical value-judgments? And who is the artist? And how are these pictures a selective recreation of reality?

I don't know the difference either. I think what Rand meant by re-creation is the portrayal of certain things within a medium (painting, music, poetry, etc.)

If those pictures are a selective re-creation of reality, I've never seen that kind of reality.

That's beause it's been "re-created." That's the whole point.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe these are fractals, in which case they are the epitome of reality represented by art. That is, an easily-consumed-by-the-layperson picture of a complex mathematical concept.

ETA: Kyle, if you've ever seen a snowflake, you've seen this kind of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand's definition of art is:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments."

I don't know the difference between a metaphysical value-judgment and an ordinary value-judgment. And I probably don't have a very good handle on what reality is. And I'm not sure what re-creation means.

Are these pictures art? If so, then what are the artist's metaphysical value-judgments? And who is the artist? And how are these pictures a selective recreation of reality?

698.png

Julia_set.jpg

julia271.gif

The replication of scale All The Way Down is a reflection of reality. At least according to the judgment of Benoit Mandelbrot.

Those images are beautiful, are they not? And the mathematics behind them is lovely.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same question could be asked of the interesting images created by M.C. Escher.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn's definition of what constitutes "art" was, and still is, one of her errors.

It made no sense to me when I was sixteen (16) and attending NBI in NY City and it makes just as little sense to me today.

Have you ever snorkeled? The visual intricacies of the underwater world would astound you.

Have you ever looked at rock formations?

The view through a microscope?

Reality is full of images that would astound you.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ayn Rand was totally correct in her definitions and greater philosophy.

Also, the monkey-faced member has no place in a civilized forum. Get rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand was totally correct in her definitions and greater philosophy.

Also, the monkey-faced member has no place in a civilized forum. Get rid of it.

Eh what??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ayn Rand was totally correct in her definitions and greater philosophy." Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was called a bully a couple of days ago. That is neither here nor there (actually, it is here), but I have been worse, far far worse with Jerry than newcomer Ralph.

Ralph, you are a fraud. Your 'art' is akin to Spirograph.

Now, that is not true, but hey, sounds boorish, right?

Better social tool use when expressing disdain or contempt (for a person) is to de-personalize the argument, cloak it in abstraction, or use ridicule against the ideas you find fatuous.

Thus, Ralph, you could have said ... Jerry's other contributions to discussion are often deluded, incoherent, fit for landfill, but I appreciate this one. I am an artist of a sort myself, a renderer, an engineer of images. I don't know if Jerry's pastes are art, but I find them beautiful. Perhaps readers will be interested in my work. Jerry, why don't you shut the fuck up more often?

I'll be frank, Ralph. I got my hand slapped by my peers here recently for suggesting OL (amongst the Objectivish purlieus) give too much welcome to kookiepant nutters (or whatever I said). Here we have got them all over time. Christian Objectivists. Reformed Scientologist Objectivists. God himself (part-time) Objectivish-ists. Angy ranting sliding-to-dementia Objectivettes (Janet). Bitter and unsuccessful expert Objectivists. Objectivists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And other deeply troubled and only partially-rational people.

Got the hand slapped, though, because it seemed I crossed the line.

I don't like Jerry's nonsense, his sense of victimization (if not for the doctors and the FBI and society and taxes and argh I coulda been somebody), and I don't like his evasive, uncomprehending rejoinders. I intensely dislike the gaping holes in his cognition and ability to reason.


But somehow, I am tolerated when I give him thirty whacks. Somehow, I get to say far far far worse things about Jerry than you have without bringing on the Patrol.

Why do you think that is?

One other thing. A bully generally runs away or cowers when confronted by a stronger person. A bully likes to dominate, to feel dominant over a weaker being, but NEVER challenges the stronger. A bully wants to push people around physically, debase, denigrate, cause humiliation, pain, distress, fear -- for no other reason than that it feels good to the bully. Real good. The best.

I cause (at times) white hot flames or rage, and sometimes (I imagine) some pyschic pain or distress. I don't give a fuck about that generally, because I think of it as a pain signal -- the sense that something is wrong, in this case the dumfuck's dumfuck opinions or whatever. I want the signal to register and be remembered. Like a hot stove of stupid.

But, though a bully I may be, I don't stand down or run away, or disappear, or fail to challenge the dominant. I defend my words (almost always). I stand by them. I proceed with the argument.


You have gone all silent there, Ralph.


Why is that?

Here's a simpler question: is this art?

moray-545x410.jpg

spiral-jetty-great-salt-lake.png

The-World-2_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Here is a question for you.

What is worse? To present the general countenance of an ape to people who call you that, or to go off-visual and ape Howard Roark's rudeness to Peter Keating--i.e., issue orders in a nasty tone of voice when addressing strangers for the first time as if you own the place and want to bully the inhabitants? (Or close enough to the first time.)

Two contexts. Same word.

Ape.

This metaphor has the same meaning in both contexts--it indicates thinking on a very primitive level, or, maybe, not engaging the conceptual faculty at all.

Here's news. Roark didn't try to bully people he didn't know.

He responded curtly to people who tried to bully him. That is far, far different than what Hertle did, even though the blunt form of barking out an order looks similar.

As to jts's ape-ness, working through ideas is hard work. I have no doubt he will find his way to not feeling he needs to preach so hard he gets other people's motives all wrong. And maybe better process some of the hurt life has thrown at him. But it takes time. And, given his health condition (if it is as bad as he related), I sincerely hope he lives long enough to get there.

He has really good value in him, which is why I let him work through stuff here on OL in his own manner.

Hertle has really good value, too, from what I have seen of his work.

My beef is, as always, when a person tries to take over and impose his/her opinions on others as some kind of gate for people to pass through for good standing--with such "enlightened" person as the gatekeeper. (Ain't it funny how there's never any doubt about the "who" in that last part?)

Preachers do that.

As enlightenment, it's nothing but BS--whether it's conspiracy fanaticism and victimization, anal "Objectivist ritualist" crap (to use Rand's term as given in The Art of Nonfiction), the Progressive busy-bodiness of trying to lay guilt trips on strangers, etc.

Intellectuals discuss ideas. They use reason benevolently.

Incidentally, weren't you the one who turned me on to the Principle of Charity for analyzing the meaning of another person's utterances? I believe you were. If anyone wants to dig, I'm sure a post can be uncovered to prove it.

I have found that concept extremely useful in encouraging people to work through their thinking. In other words, I often see a person who is in mid-growth with an idea or context I understand well, and I try not to blame him for not being fully mature, unless that person starts preaching too much and intimidating others. Even when such person gets out on a limb. (btw - This applies to me, too.)

Why call a teenager evil for not having the understanding of a 50-year-old? This statement is a rich metaphor if you apply it to other intellectual situations.

Growth takes time and effort. You can peg that one on the law of identity. It is true and will continue to be true for living beings--and thinking beings--no matter how nasty someone wants to get to ignore it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Here is a question for you.

What is worse? To present the general countenance of an ape to people who call you that, or to go off-visual and ape Howard Roark's rudeness to Peter Keating--i.e., issue orders in a nasty tone of voice when addressing strangers for the first time as if you own the place and want to bully the inhabitants? (Or close enough to the first time.)

I don't know, really. To present the general countenance of an ape (you mean Jerry's avatar) is meaningless, probably. It opens up a whole wing of derision in the palace of mockery, however, as you may have noticed.

"To present [a chimpanzee avatar] to people who call you that" -- can you rephrase that? I am having a hard time parsing it.

Howard Roark's rudeness to Peter Keating? or issue orders in a nasty tone of voice when addressing strangers for the first time?

Two contexts. Same word.

Ape.

This metaphor has the same meaning in both contexts--it indicates thinking on a very primitive level, or, maybe, not engaging the conceptual faculty at all.

I disagree. Ape is the snide newcomer's word. He may have intended a slur and nothing else.

If you are asking me to weigh the offences (so to speak) of Jerry versus the Newcomer, I posted my thoughts above. Quote me if you had a problem understanding my points and I can amplify.

As to jts's ape-ness, working through ideas is hard work. I have no doubt he will find his way to not feeling he needs to preach so hard he gets other people's motives all wrong. And maybe better process some of the hurt life has thrown at him. But it takes time. And, given his health condition (if it is as bad as he related), I sincerely hope he lives long enough to get there.

We will have to disagree here -- if you are claiming that Jerry is actually working through ideas. I see no evidence of that, frankly. I hope he could benefit from pointed criticism, but he is immune. His pronouncements are just that, pronouncements. And the irrationality of his prejudices and inability to admit error are pretty severe blocks to the goal we would both hope he could achieve.

My beef is, as always, when a person tries to take over and impose his/her opinions on others as some kind of gate for people to pass through for good standing--with such "enlightened" person as the gatekeeper. (Ain't it funny how there's never any doubt about the "who" in that last part?)

Preachers do that.

An example or two would help.

Incidentally, weren't you the one who turned me on to the Principle of Charity for analyzing the meaning of another person's utterances? I believe you were. If anyone wants to dig, I'm sure a post can be uncovered to prove it.

I was, to my best remembrance. It is a good guide to productive discussion. In context, when Jerry says something like all drugs are poisons. I take him at his word, as plainly stated. It is hard to miss the intent of such statements ...

I have found that concept extremely useful in encouraging people to work through their thinking.

And yet not useful in understanding other folks' intent? Isn't it far more satisfying to apply a linguistic generalization: progressive, preacher, blah blah?

Why call a teenager evil for not having the understanding of a 50-year-old? This statement is a rich metaphor if you apply it to other intellectual situations.

Do you remember that New Yorker cartoon I posted/described (cited by Loftus)? the one where the kid rears up over the dining table to confront his parents (who have implicitly told him, "Curiosity Killed the Cat"?

He said, What was the cat's name? How old was it? What was it curious about?

Who called which teenager evul?

Hertle has really good value, too, from what I have seen of his work.

Really? I have seen his awful website 'gallery' ... this he claims is art and hopes to sell prints.

RRp6.jpeg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... It opens up a whole wing of derision in the palace of mockery...

William,

Help me out here.

Are you saying that mockery (of Jerry) is somehow superior to derision (of Jerry)? That he should prefer one over the other?

Heh.

This sounds like the choice to be killed on purpose or killed by accident. You're just as dead either way.

"To present [a chimpanzee avatar] to people who call you that" -- can you rephrase that? I am having a hard time parsing it.

Seriously? You haven't seen the pattern of Jerry's rhetoric?

Let me give it a shot. He makes a claim, or wants to make a claim and presents an item that does it, let's say the Black Helicopters are coming.

(I'm using an over-the-top conspiracy example more in line with how you have pegged him in order to not get side-tracked into defending his views. But for the record, I hold some of them are out there and some of them are reasonable.)

He knows he will be mocked for this, so he goes 180 degrees to the opposite and says something like, "We should not believe in Black Helicopters. Ever. Those who believe in Black Helicopters are stupid and paranoid."

I've thrown a few of these in the Garbage Pile, but that is his method. I think he is making a visual statement with that avatar. If people are going to treat me like a monkey, let me agree with them so they will have to look at one.

You don't have to like this form of rhetoric or even think it is effective, but I believe it is valuable to understand the pattern.

Ape is the snide newcomer's word. He may have intended a slur and nothing else.

In the context of a slur against Jerry's intelligence, there is very little difference between ape, monkey, chimpanzee, etc. That's why the lower primate thing is a metaphor and you can use those terms interchangeably for the same effect.

If you are asking me to weigh the offences (so to speak) of Jerry versus the Newcomer...

I am not. Punishment has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I was merely showing that there is more common ground between the two approaches than the lower primate metaphor. There is social behavior that trumps any concern with ideas. I kinda like the irony of Hertle thinking he is putting folks down when he has actually stooped to the level of what he is bashing. :smile:

We will have to disagree here -- if you are claiming that Jerry is actually working through ideas. I see no evidence of that, frankly. I hope he could benefit from pointed criticism, but he is immune. His pronouncements are just that, pronouncements. And the irrationality of his his prejudices and inability to admit error are pretty severe blocks to the goal we would both hope he could achieve.

Could it be that he rejects your finger-wagging and tut-tut-tutting at him as you call him a nutter?

If you want to see evidence, you will have to step back a little and, instead of desiring immediate compliance with what you think he should think and do, see how he has moved over time. You need a bigger view than compliance on pain of contempt. It's a snail's pace, but it's there.

As to your message, I simply think he doesn't take you or your message seriously. I seem to communicate well with him, even when I disagree. I hold it's a matter of judging the issues and not the person. But you have your ways and I have mine.

An example or two would help.

This is in reference to my preachers comment. Look in the Garbage Pile. You will see plenty of examples. I often call the preacher types "bullies."

In context, when Jerry says something like all drugs are poisons. I take him at his word, as plainly stated.

Are you sure you are practicing the principle of charity here?

Who called which teenage evul?

It's a metaphor, William. I even said it was a metaphor. I was giving a hypothetical example of my point--but one that is common enough.

Here is a great O-Land example of where that metaphor applies, albeit not related to any Jerry and Hertle bashing that is so dear to your heart.

Islam.

There are people in our subcommunity who believe all you have to do is present an Objectivist or libertarian-like argument to a Muslim and he must see the light and convert immediately or be labeled evil. Even Muslims who are starting to read John Locke and so forth. There is no space for growth with these impatient people.

Learning about one world-view from the context of being soaked in another is very similar to growth. It's a slow process, that is if you are truly interested in seeing that world-view from the eyes of the person who lives in it. If you are only interested in learning details of the other world-view so you can use these details to condemn THE BIG BAD THEM with, there is no growth and that is not what I am talking about. A person who does this is only interested in scapegoating or looking for a fight.

Regarding Jerry, you are soaked in one world-view. He is in another. It's the same thing as the Muslim and the Western O-Lander. Once again, I refer you to the principle of charity when looking at his views. Maybe an absolute to him is not as absolute as the absolute you want to mock.

(I know I bit my tongue often with you Progressives and this is the reason... :smile: )

But I hear ya'. That itch to mock is a bitch, ain't it? It gives a rush like a hit on a crack-pipe. It's hard to give it up for something as silly-sounding as the principle of charity, which doesn't get you high, anyway...

One last comment. This is about Hertle. You chose a work that isn't representative of the majority of the works displayed on his site. Regardless. I'm not a fan of that particular work, but it isn't bad in relation to what is on the market. Go to any mid-range art gallery if you want to see what I'm talking about. In fact, I can see where it would work well in certain offices or business environment settings. Think financial services for one example. So what is your intent? A gotcha game? Snigger at his work?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note on Loftus. It was SOLO, not here, and it was Parade, not the New Yorker:

"There is a wonderful cartoon that appeared recently in Parade magazine. And here's where we get to that cat. A mother and her little son are sitting at the kitchen table. Apparently, mom has just chided the son for excessive curiosity. The son rises up and barks back:

'Curiosity killed what cat? What was it curious about? What color was it? Did it have a name? How old was it?'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Principle of charityThe principle of charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

I like the word "rational" in the Wikipedia excerpt.

But this could easily be understood as another way of saying that you should try to see what a person is getting at before attacking him with nitpicking or mockery.

At least you would be addressing his real point instead of ignoring it.

You may not agree, but if you don't, I kinda know what you are getting at. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, forgive me for cutting and pasting more material on The Principlle of Charity and not yet responding in detail to your intriguing replies above. A long discussion day elsewhere, and hands cramped from typing (whine whine).

I could briefly turn the question back to you, though, since I still really don't understand your Which is Worse query (which is not necessarily your fault). The question would be:

-- "Which is worse, the Newcomer's blithe contempt for Jerry's opinions (and value to OL), or William's (less) blithe contempt for Jerry's opinions (and value to OL)?"

This is more or less the question I asked above in reply to the newcomer: if I have written far worse things about Jerry than has the newcomer, which acts are worse (mine or his)? And why?

The following is from philiosophy pages at Lander.edu. It is more detailed and challenging than the Wiki entry. I won't pretend that I use the principle of charity consistently or constantly or even a majority of times. I will study this thing tomorrow and try to figure out how much of a hypocrite I may be ...


Can you, Michael, tell us that you routinely (unlike me) use the principle? Straight up question, just to clear the air. I am supremely self-confident in a few things, but not in instant self-assessment. If you believe that I fail to use the principle consistently, quite true. What about you?

Anyhow.

The Principle of Charity

Abstract: The Principle of Charity is a presumption often made in philosophy whereby preconceptions about an argument, a topic, or a belief are set aside in the attempt to gain new understanding.

  1. The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation.
    1. While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.
    2. We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful..
    3. Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.
    4. We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.
  2. The principle of charity is a methodological principle—ideas can be critiqued after an adequate understanding is achieved. The original presumption of setting aside our own beliefs and assuming the new ideas are true is only a provisional presumption.
  3. Hence, we should listen and read in the beginning as if we had no personal attitudes. We should seek to be open and receptive.
  4. This attitude, if maintained, frees the conditioned mind and enables it to absorb and understand the new.
  5. In essence, we just start with a simple desire to get a point not understood upon first acquaintance.
  6. Willard Van Orman Quine's version of the principle is this maxim of translation: "[[A]ssertions startingly false on the face of them are likely to turn on hidden differences of languages." (W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object (Cambridge, Mass: The M. I. T. Press, 1960), 59.)
  7. Donald Davidson suggests the principle of charity (or, in his words, "the principle of rational accommodation") should attempt to "maximize" sense and "optimize" agreement when invoked with respect to coherence and factual correspondence of what is said.
    1. Principle of Coherence: seeks "logical consistency in the thought of the speaker."
    2. Principle of Correspondence: seeks the same feature of the world that [we] would be responding to under similar circumstance."
    3. The humanity principle as put forward by Richard Grandy is that we should initially interpret a different philosophical point of view in accordance with the assumption that the interrelation of belief and reality being expressed is similar to our own. As Donald Dennett explains the principle of humanity, "[O]ne should attribute to [the person's whose view we are attempting to understand] … the propositional attitudes one supposes one would have oneself in those circumstances."
  8. Feynman writes in his Nobel Prize Lecture about struggling with the notion of backward causation in quantum electrodynamics:

    … all physicists know from studying Einstein and Bohr, that sometimes an idea which looks completely paradoxical at first, if analyzed to completion in all detail and in experimental situations, may, in fact, not be paradoxical.

    1. Dostoevsky writes in his Notes from Underground that what is not in one's own interest may be precisely that which is in one's own interest:

      Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble … we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests … And what if it so happens that a man's advantage,
      sometimes
      not only may, but even must, consists in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous[?]

      Through consideration of the seemingly contradictory idea that one's advantage can be what is not ones advantage, Dostoevsky reveals the notion of unconscious motivation.

      1. In Hinduism, God may be worshipped as a child when the devotee worships Krishna. A Christian, uncharitably, might be inclined to believe Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. Yet, for the Christian, the notion of the Christ Child could be suggested by the application of the principle of humanity in order to help understand this ideal in Hinduism. Swami Vivekanda writes:

        The next [human representation of the ideal of divine love] is what is known as Vatsalya, loving God not as our Father but as our Child. This may look peculiar, but it is a discipline to enable us to detach all ideas of power from the concept of God. … [T]he Christian and the Hindu can realize [this idea of God as Child] easily, because they have the baby Jesus and the baby Krishna.

        The similarity belief and attitudes between Christianity and Hinduism, in this regard, removes unnecessary difficulties in understanding.

  9. Refinements of the principle of charity in philosophy include the principle of rational accommodation whereby we attempt to maximize truth and the principle of humanity where we attempt to maximize intelligibility.
  10. Some examples of uses and possible benefits on the application of the principle of charity in the analysis for new ideas:
Further Reading:
  • A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion. Jonathan Davis's useful summary of twelve principles of for open discussion in Usenet debates is drawn from Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer.
  • Principle of Charity. Philosophical and rhetorical principles are briefly summarized by Wikipedia.
  • Unbeggable Questions. ( PDF) Some problems with the principle of charity are noted in passing in this paper from Analysis by Roy Sorensen on the fallacy of begging the question.

Hope this helps and is food for thought. I am such a terrible annoying bitch sometimes, I wonder why I do not get as much shit as Jerry ...

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

No you don't.

I'm not playing that way--i.e., copy past a crap load of stuff to read and give it to someone in order to nitpick things to death.

I am starting to post again, but I still have a life, fer Keriissakes...

To wit, I practice the principle of charity by the very act of fostering an environment on OL to let people work out their thinking to the very best of their ability without peer pressure. I can disagree with someone and still see how they got to their conclusion rationally using their starting points and contexts.

Rather than dismiss them as crackpots, evil mystics, evil Progressives and so forth, I try to see the world through their eyes and then I back off to see if there is any overlaps with my views . Then I try to build understanding from there.

Within limits, of course.

Here is how I understand the principle of charity in action within the context of running a forum. Using my premises and worldview, something might be evil. In another worldview, it might be an enormous good. This would make us both look at the same thing and rationally see it differently.

Let's go really far out for an example, OK? Take the case of mass suicide in a cult like Heaven's Gate. That's about as irrational as it gets. Right?

Well, what if those folks did not imagine they were committing suicide as you and I understand it? What if they were passing through a cosmic gateway to another level--one with more benefits than here on earth? That totally reframes the act of suicide for them. Not for us, but for them, it was not suicide at all. It was a step up. Something like a graduation ceremony.

Granted, their irrationality was on their premise level, but after accepting such a premise as axiomatic, they acted perfectly rationally in order to achieve their goal. They just started in the wrong place to build their concepts on.

If I were to talk to them, I would not mock them for wanting to commit suicide, or try to talk them out of it using arguments from my world-view. I would try to plant seeds of doubt in their premise, though. Starting with their understanding of the nature of existence and presenting other core stories.

Once they got another axiom (and context) to build on--preferably one that conflicted with the odd premise their core story provided, they would be able to start seeing what suicide means to someone like me. Then, at that point, oddly enough, their very commitment to rationality would lead them out of their myth.

On a far less intense level, this is how I see lots of people come and go here on OL. If people can rationally question their basic premisses and understanding of their own humanity in the same manner as they develop everything else from their normal starting points, I believe in them--I believe in their minds to lead them to good places. Even when they do not adopt Rand's way (or my way) of doing it. Get their reason cranked up and running--and pointed at their own foundation--and they will do the rest.

And this, I submit, is an act of using the principle of charity. Maybe not in the sense a scientist would. But there is method--rational method and acknowledgment of rationality--to this madness.

To change gears, want to know something weird?

Ralph Hertle has been a member of OL since 2009. He even posted here back then. I literally forgot all about him.

That's partially because of limited search capability here on OL. I found info about him on a Google search. Google the following and you will see what I mean:

"Ralph Hertle" "Objectivist Living"

The first thing I will do when I move OL out of IPB is to restore the search function to include all posts from the beginning of time and not just the recent years. I have tried and tried to get those IPB geek-heads to see that this is important on a philosophy board, but they have the same premise problem that the Heaven's Gate folks did. For example, they think it's perfectly rational to disable search for guests altogether since it saves on server resources. And it is rational if that's all you care about.

Sometimes I can get things set right with them, but then a new update comes along and off we go again.

Patience is a virtue in this case. But when I am finally able to fix it, I swear by my life and love of it that it will get righteously fixed. :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I don’t get what you mean by Roark being rude to Keating. I don’t recall that. Did you have a particular scene in mind?

(On getting all posts back into the search, glad to hear you will be trying for it.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concerning the ape face, yes, it is an up-front aggressive expression of hostility towards people here, perhaps towards Objectivist types in general, perhaps towards people in general. It is in discussion context rude and expressive of hostility, whether Mr. Story realizes it or not, intends it or not, or cares.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

William,

Thanks for the good piece on the principle of charity of interpretation in the philosophic community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

I would have to look it up, but there were times when Keating said something and Roark responded with one-liners like, "Cut the compliments." Or even would tell him to shut up (but not in those words). I'm going on memory, but an image is nagging at the corner of my mind where Keating (or someone) got snide about Henry Cameron and Roark became rude about it.

By rude in this context, I mean barking out one-liner orders to be obeyed imediately by the person he is addressing.

As a response to a specific person for a specific act, I can see it working. Just showing up and barking out orders to people in general gives an entirely different impression. That, in my book, is aping the gesture and missing the essence.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now