A Few Kant Quotes

[Newberry]

Ellen: I think that the depiction of Kant as personally evil at all -- let alone as comparatively the "most evil" -- is "very much overblown." I'm unaware of any evidence for thinking that he was evil, period. (I'm by no means convinced either of the supposed case for his ideas having been so all-fired disastrous, but even if something of a case can be made on the score of bad effects of his ideas, this wouldn't demonstrate the truth of a characterological charge against him as a person.)

Can you think in what cases someone is ideologically, or intellectually evil? Perhaps, you categorically deny that there are bad ideas or systems of thought?

I think teachers and professors have an obligation, something like the Hippocratic oath, not to damage or destroy the minds of students under their care. I really loved Rand's article, The Comprachicos , in which she draws the analogy between physical and mental disfigurement. Postmodern art theory is a dead end. It is simply a disintegrative process. Consequently, the process leads to a cynical view of art/life. I am speaking from lots of real life experience from working on these negative ideas when I was young, seeing students dealing with these kinds of theories, seeing some of them change towards an wholistic, integrated view, and seeing those artists grow with confidence, passion, self esteem, and internal joy in their work.

I don't see how anyone can consistently embrace Kantian aesthetics of the sublime and achieve that incredible "it" feeling. What is the motive of the professors that promote postmodern theories as the standard of value? At best they are very confused people, and at worst...

Michael

Edited July 16, 2008 by Newberry

[Philip Coates]

LOOKING FOR ANY FLAW OR MISSTATEMENT, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, AS A MAJOR DISCUSSION METHOD

> Again, I'm not an advocate of Kant.

Got it. I thought it was clear if one rereads my statement that I was saying your quote was doing a good job of defending or advocating the idea that Kant had worthwhile things to say. Not that you were a cross-the board advocate of Kant's philosophy.

Obviously.

.............

Again, not that Bill is a practitioner (and the above is quite minor), but it reminds me of this wider issue:

to nitpick [dictionary]: to be overly critical; criticize minor details / giving too much attention to unimportant details, especially as a way of criticizing: e.g., "If you spent less time nitpicking, you'd get more work done."

I wish people wouldn't nitpick on isolated word choices or relative side issues in their replies when it distracts focus from the central debate: This is an informal forum and people will use the wrong word, misspell, or in discussing the positions of five or six people or posts, use an inexact word, etc.

We see on this and other Oist lists, people constantly combing the posts of others, of opponents, for minute flaws. Don't be a pedant or a smartass and point out people's spelling or typo mistakes, for example. It just sucks up bandwidth. The discussion becomes one of 'gotcha' instead of actually focusing on what the person is primarily saying -- I've noticed this a lot recently on the PARC thread for example -- dozens? of posts on can you rephrase what someone said one time only and then be castigated for not being a scholar. As opposed to the more substantive or more important issues of whether your main arguments or support for them are -true- or not.

And of course this, finding-any-possible-stick-to-attack-with, seems to have originated with Lindsay P and Diana H., was first taken up by their followers, and now is sometimes aped by 'frequent flyers' on other lists:

The approach is since I don't like you, your ideas outrage me, I'll watch you like a hawk for any possible misswording or mistake. My purpose is to attack you or try to belittle you any way I can. Another example of this in my own experience: recently, when I said too loosely that I "knew everybody" in NYC at a certain time, Ellen was just looking to pounce and nitpick to try to make me look bad by saying well, is that true -literally-? ... did I know you?, did you know so and so? Rather than taking my statement in the sense that I had met, spoken to all the -major- Objectivists.

[Roger Bissell]

Thanks to Bill P. for his extensive quote from Rand's 1958 (?) lectures on "The Art of Fiction." Much more recently (1976), in the Q&A of lecture 11 of Peikoff's series "The Philosophy of Objectivism," Rand said the following:

Now, I will preface this by saying, I regard this as a dishonest question, and you will see why, so I'm answering it as a job of teaching you philosophical detection. The question: "Humor does not appear to play a major role in the lives of your fictional heroes. What is the role ofhumor in human life? Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist? What does an Objectivist find humorous?"

Starting backward, I mentioned last time that we're sometimes asked questions on which there can be no possible philosophical stand, and here it is, a good example of it. That's the lesser objection to it. "What does an Objectivist find humorous?" How in hell would I know? Philosophy cannot give you a principle by which you decide what you find humorous. And there is a principle, but it belongs to psychology more than philosophy.

"Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist?" Well, it depends what kind of value, and to which Objectivist, and above all, which comedian?

Now, the serious dishonesty of this piece is the idea that humor does not appear to play a major role in the lives of my fctional heroes. You bet your goddamned professor from whom you heard it that it does not! Let me see a person in whose life humor plays a major role. Humor is not a major issue. You know, in the old days there used to be short-reel subjects, usually comedies, and they had a slogan, "the spice of the program." Well, that's exactly what humor is, it's the spice. Proper humor can be amusing, and that's enjoyable just as good food is enjoyable and tennis games are enjoyable. But is that a major issue in your life, unless you're a professional tennis player? I would exclude professional interests. But anyone who would say sports are a major interest, he has to check his premises, because it's an interest and a valid one and fine; it's enjoyment; but it's not a major interest in anyone's life.

Now, to tell you in one word, as briefly as I can, what humor is: humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. And a classic example, for instance: if you see a very snootzy dowager, very well dressed, walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel -- it's used in every old-fashioned comedy -- what's funny about it? Well, it's the contrast of the woman's pretentions to reality. She acted very grand, but reality undercut her with a plain banana peel. Now, you see, that's the denial of the metaphysical validity or importance or pretensions of that woman. Therefore, humor is a destructive element, which is quite all right; but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are laughing at. If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world, provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself ot laugh at it, that's fine. If you laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself, then you are a monster. And any time I have heard anyone comment on no humor in my books or in my heroes, that is what is meant here. Because look, there are passages in all my books, where I know of audiences read this laughing aloud, and it's really funny. There is that kind of humor. But never will you find one line which laughs at my heroes, my values, or at anything good. And in this context, I want to remind you of a very important distinction I drew in Atlas Shrugged, which is relevant here, where Dagny in her childhood observed that Francisco and her brother, James, both laughed very often,but they laughed in different ways. Francisco laughed as if he saw something much greater than what he was laughing at. James laughed as if he didn't want to allow anything to remain great.

Now, that's the distinction. And the kind of people who say there's no humor in my novels has said it also about every writer that I like, including, even I've read about it, Cyrano de Bergerac, which is called a tragi-comedy and is an enormously witty, humorous play and also tragic. But the humor is always directed at human weaknesses or evils, never at the hero, never at Cyrano himself.

The worst evil that you can do psychologically is to laugh at yourself. That literally means spitting in your own face. Anyone who is looking for humor as a major issue is looking for that. He doesn't think it's funny when you laugh at him, that is, at villains; but he wants you to laugh at yourself and he'll be happy and at home only with another character like himself who will be spitting in his own face. Leave them to it, and if this question interests you, my novels are not for you.

Just a guess, but I'd bet good money that the (underscored) opening and closing jabs (arguments by intimidation? impugning the motives of the questioner?) are not included in Ayn Rand Answers. Mayhew knows better than to include stuff like this which puts Rand in a very bad light.

And I reiterate that Rand's definition (?) of humor (italicized sentence above) is quite close to Kant's. You set up a context, an expectation of meaning, and then you explode it.

It is similar also to Koestler's view of humor (see The Act of Creation, even though it was highly recommended by the arch-villain himself, Nathaniel Branden). Ellen mentions Koestler, who coined the term "bisociation." Basically, two different "mental fields" or contexts suddenly intersect or collide in a way that renders the first one inoperative. E.g., the snooty woman projects the air of one who is "above it all," but the banana peel reveals in a very poignant way that she is ~not~ above it all, but is instead quite susceptible to the Law of Gravity, which suddenly takes away her posturing "dignity." Both Kant and Rand would agree. Reality has negated (or rendered metaphysically unimportant) her pretensions of superior status. (That's why it's funny when Oliver Hardy slips on a banana peel, but not when Stan Laurel does.)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

LOOKING FOR ANY FLAW OR MISSTATEMENT, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, AS A MAJOR DISCUSSION METHOD

> Again, I'm not an advocate of Kant.

Got it. I thought it was clear if one rereads my statement that I was saying your quote was doing a good job of defending or advocating the idea that Kant had worthwhile things to say. Not that you were a cross-the board advocate of Kant's philosophy.

Obviously.

.............

Again, not that Bill is a practitioner (and the above is quite minor), but it reminds me of this wider issue:

to nitpick [dictionary]: to be overly critical; criticize minor details / giving too much attention to unimportant details, especially as a way of criticizing: e.g., "If you spent less time nitpicking, you'd get more work done."

I wish people wouldn't nitpick on isolated word choices or relative side issues in their replies when it distracts focus from the central debate: This is an informal forum and people will use the wrong word, misspell, or in discussing the positions of five or six people or posts, use an inexact word, etc.

We see on this and other Oist lists, people constantly combing the posts of others, of opponents, for minute flaws. Don't be a pedant or a smartass and point out people's spelling or typo mistakes, for example. It just sucks up bandwidth. The discussion becomes one of 'gotcha' instead of actually focusing on what the person is primarily saying -- I've noticed this a lot recently on the PARC thread for example -- dozens? of posts on can you rephrase what someone said one time only and then be castigated for not being a scholar. As opposed to the more substantive or more important issues of whether your main arguments or support for them are -true- or not.

And of course this, finding-any-possible-stick-to-attack-with, seems to have originated with Lindsay P and Diana H., was first taken up by their followers, and now is sometimes aped by 'frequent flyers' on other lists:

The approach is since I don't like you, your ideas outrage me, I'll watch you like a hawk for any possible misswording or mistake. My purpose is to attack you or try to belittle you any way I can. Another example of this in my own experience: recently, when I said too loosely that I "knew everybody" in NYC at a certain time, Ellen was just looking to pounce and nitpick to try to make me look bad by saying well, is that true -literally-? ... did I know you?, did you know so and so? Rather than taking my statement in the sense that I had met, spoken to all the -major- Objectivists.

Jesus Christ, Ellen, that's totally unacceptable. How ~dare~ you play gotcha with Phil just so you can belittle him and make him look bad!

From now on, I am not going to discuss anything with you or socialize with you, until and unless you confess to this heinous motive and behavior and apologize profusely to poor Phil.

Note to Michael: could we enlist some neutral, trust-worthy list member as a sort of "pounce bouncer" to discipline these folks who dwell over-much on the minor flaws of others? It's obvious that they are not here to advance understanding, but simply to make themselves look better in comparison to those whose faults they harp on.

REB

P.S. -- Please apply an ironic interpretation to the above -- and more in the mode of nose-tweaking than face-spitting, all right?

[Newberry]

Hey Phil,

What I find fascinating, "informative", and important about Kant's aesthetics is the connection between his theories and postmodern art trends from the last 80/90 years.

What I don't understand about you, is that you are not "happy" with the quotes provided. Often you have stressed that Objectivism is not easy and requires careful study. I would hold that Objectivism is a piece of cake compared to the chaos a Kant's aesthetics and understanding postmodern art. No one requires you to pursue postmodern thought, and dismissing it is a valid approach for you and many other people. For me, understanding the divide between postmodern art theory/practice and where I wanted to go as a representational painter was crucial. Understanding the key issues enabled me to much more easily pursue my values in an art world set in an anti art mode--absolutely invaluable!

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

The approach is since I don't like you, your ideas outrage me, I'll watch you like a hawk for any possible misswording or mistake. My purpose is to attack you or try to belittle you any way I can. Another example of this in my own experience: recently, when I said too loosely that I "knew everybody" in NYC at a certain time, Ellen was just looking to pounce and nitpick to try to make me look bad by saying well, is that true -literally-? ... did I know you?, did you know so and so? Rather than taking my statement in the sense that I had met, spoken to all the -major- Objectivists.

HUH???

Talk about mind-reading, and doing so really wrongly. You made certain claims. I was trying to situate the accuracy in your claims, to get the details. The vague statements you made were no use to me in assessing who you did know and what background you might have of relevance to the topic of your thread, you and the O'ist psychologists. You spoke of at least one session with Lonnie. How much acquaintance with Lonnie did you have? How much with Allan? How much with Edith? When? Where? (Was your primary acquaintance with her in New York or California?)

I still don't know from your statement above: who?, under what circumstances?, how extensively? -- I have nothing except a vague assertion which doesn't tell me anything particular in content.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen mentions Koestler, who coined the term "bisociation." Basically, two different "mental fields" or contexts suddenly intersect or collide in a way that renders the first one inoperative.

I mistakently wrote -- in my post #48 -- "bifurcation" instead of "bisociation." I tried instants after I'd submitted the post to fix the error, but the server went off-line then.

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

We see on this and other Oist lists, people constantly combing the posts of others, of opponents, for minute flaws. Don't be a pedant or a smartass and point out people's spelling or typo mistakes, for example. It just sucks up bandwidth. The discussion becomes one of 'gotcha' instead of actually focusing on what the person is primarily saying -- I've noticed this a lot recently on the PARC thread for example -- dozens? of posts on can you rephrase what someone said one time only and then be castigated for not being a scholar. As opposed to the more substantive or more important issues of whether your main arguments or support for them are -true- or not.

Phil, you're completely missing what the problem is with James Valliant's misquoting, misrepresenting, distorting, changing the meaning of what he says people said by putting words -- and hence meanings -- in their writings which they never wrote. PARC is shot through with this sort of thing. It's the whole foundation of Valliant's "case" -- whatever, exactly, he thinks his "case" is; he persistently fails to say when he's pressed to do so.

You might understand what we're all talking about on the thread if you'd read the book yourself. But you haven't -- or Passion, or NB's memoir (in either or both versions), or (possibly) any of the other original sources being discussed (have you read Hospers' Liberty memoir?).

You are not in a position to assess what is and what is not of significance to issues of PARC.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Another quote (this one very brief to make it easy to digest and contemplate in a short time) for commentary:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease."

Thoughts on this one?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Fatuous. Each sentence is false, too. Not to mention that the third sentence contradicts the previous two.

--Brant

This particular quote can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, page 73. It is not Kant, but Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen: I think that the depiction of Kant as personally evil at all -- let alone as comparatively the "most evil" -- is "very much overblown." I'm unaware of any evidence for thinking that he was evil, period. (I'm by no means convinced either of the supposed case for his ideas having been so all-fired disastrous, but even if something of a case can be made on the score of bad effects of his ideas, this wouldn't demonstrate the truth of a characterological charge against him as a person.)

Can you think in what cases someone is ideologically, or intellectually evil? Perhaps, you categorically deny that there are bad ideas or systems of thought?

Michael, I'm not sure if you're thinking of those as two different questions or as pretty much the same. I see them as two different questions.

I can most certainly think of cases of persons whom I'd describe as "ideologically, or intellectually" at least real close to "evil." I can think of a list of names at this minute, names of scientists who have sold their souls and whose scientific reputations I think should be ruined for the dishonesty they're perpetrating and whose scientific reputations I believe eventually will be ruined. These are people making claims which they know damned well are not true, and presenting those claims as science.

I can think of other cases in which I suspect people of arguing dishonestly, of knowing better than what they're saying.

But that isn't the same as the question if there are "bad ideas or systems of thought." I think there are "bad" ideas -- and theories -- and systems in two different but overlapping senses. Ideas and theories and systems can be bad because of being poor quality: not well formulated, not well thought through, not well supported; poorly done. They can also be "bad" in the sense of leading to harmful results if practiced. It would be a "bad" idea in both senses to think you could fly if you jumped off the roof, for instance. Among possible harmful consequences of ideas, some I'd consider "evil" consequences. The standard example, Nazism, for instance.

The question which I find horribly tricky is whether or not the idea which Leonard Peikoff enunciated in "Fact and Value" of "inherently dishonest ideas" holds water. I think there are some ideas which are so productive of harmful consequences if taken seriously as maybe to qualify as being ideas which no one under any circumstances could honestly hold. But I'm not entirely convinced, because I'm too well aware of the enormous complexities of the psychological and contextual differences amongst people. I thus hesitate to make any categorical claims of there inherently having to be dishonesty in accepting X idea/theory/system.

Regarding Kant in particular, I have not seen any reason to believe that Kant was dishonest.

I am far removed from being a Kant scholar. I've read a number of his major works, not recently except in excerpts. I am not familiar with his writings on aesthetics; I'm not in a position to have an opinion as to whether you're right about his theories leading to postmodern art theory. I don't even have much of an idea of what "postmodern art theory" is, what you mean by that description. So I'm not able to address some of the questions you ask.

For instance, when you write: What is the motive of the professors that promote postmodern theories as the standard of value?, I can only say: I don't know -- with the additional general comment that I doubt that all of them have the same motive; I doubt that they could, since I don't know of any other area in which all of those promoting a particular theory have the same motive.

This is the best I can do -- not much help, I'm afraid. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Another quote (this one very brief to make it easy to digest and contemplate in a short time) for commentary:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease."

Thoughts on this one?

[....]

This particular quote can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, page 73. It is not Kant, but Rand.

Te-he. I knew it was Rand. Not exactly a "pellucid" comment. We all have our moments. ;-)

E-

___

[Newberry]

Ellen:

This is the best I can do -- not much help, I'm afraid. ;-)

Ellen,

I found your reply brilliant.

Perhaps I can solve a kind of puzzle. I view Kant's theories of sublime in art evil, based on what I know. But I don't expect anyone to hold my opinion unless they understand PM art and Kant's aesthetics in the same or similar way as I do. Since there is no physical evil involved, it is not a case for a court of law. Undoubtedly psychological evil is a whole other ballgame. In a way I find no contradiction that I can hold those ideas evil and others do not.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

This is the best I can do -- not much help, I'm afraid. ;-)

Ellen,

I found your reply brilliant.

Blush. Thank you.

Perhaps I can solve a kind of puzzle. I view Kant's theories of sublime in art evil, based on what I know. But I don't expect anyone to hold my opinion unless they understand PM art and Kant's aesthetics in the same or similar way as I do. Since there is no physical evil involved, it is not a case for a court of law. Undoubtedly psychological evil is a whole other ballgame. In a way I find no contradiction that I can hold those ideas evil and others do not.

That does "solve a kind of puzzle." I understand what you're saying. I can think of similar issues where I see horrible consequences of some theoretic viewpoint and others don't see what I see and I don't expect them to see what I see, since they haven't my context of perspective.

Ellen

___

[Newberry]

Blush. Thank you.

That does "solve a kind of puzzle." I understand what you're saying. I can think of similar issues where I see horrible consequences of some theoretic viewpoint and others don't see what I see and I don't expect them to see what I see, since they haven't my context of perspective.

Ellen

___

Yep, exactly. To go further I hazard that persuasion; persuading others of the rightness, objectivity, and value is really the key in the humanities. Verbal hammers don't seem to work very well. ;)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen mentions Koestler, who coined the term "bisociation." Basically, two different "mental fields" or contexts suddenly intersect or collide in a way that renders the first one inoperative.

I mistakently wrote -- in my post #48 -- "bifurcation" instead of "bisociation." I tried instants after I'd submitted the post to fix the error, but the server went off-line then.

E-

___

Ellen,

Thank you!

I read The Act of Creation years ago and the word "bifurcation" has a special meaning in my life from when I was learning Portuguese. (Long story.) I would have remembered this word in association with that book and I was coming up blank. I don't have time to look it up, but this was one of those things that nags at me and won't let go. You have just sent it away. (Whew!)

I don't even remember the word "bisociation" either (I do remember intersecting planes), but it does not set off any bells in my head.

I need to reread that book. It was a hell of a good book of original thinking.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Another quote (this one very brief to make it easy to digest and contemplate in a short time) for commentary:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease."

Thoughts on this one?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Fatuous. Each sentence is false, too. Not to mention that the third sentence contradicts the previous two.

--Brant

This particular quote can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, page 73. It is not Kant, but Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Brilliant! Reflection of genius!

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Another quote (this one very brief to make it easy to digest and contemplate in a short time) for commentary:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease."

Thoughts on this one?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Fatuous. Each sentence is false, too. Not to mention that the third sentence contradicts the previous two.

--Brant

This particular quote can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, page 73. It is not Kant, but Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Brilliant! Reflection of genius!

--Brant

LOL. And thanks for being a good sport!

Seriously, though - my mischievious behavior here had a serious purpose. (And NOTHING I say below should be interpreted as saying anything about Brant!)

It is pretty easy to take a quote and attempt to understand an author based on it, without looking at the whole context of that author's writing. If what is expressed seems equivocal, or to have a strange implication - we should ask: Is the interpretation we are making consistent with what else the author has written? Or is there another meaning, equally consistent with what is written, which is consistent with what the author has written elsewhere?

And that is one reason why it is risky to attempt to understand an author based on snippets from their work. Of course, not all authors deserve in-depth study, so each of us must choose carefully for which authors we wish to obtain a deep understanding, and for which a passing examination will suffice - based on the potential value to us from what the author might have to offer.

What I selected is from Rand's journals, from very early - May 15, 1934. Being from a journal, it was not written "for publication." That also must affect our interpretation.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Alfonso Jones]

Another quote (this one very brief to make it easy to digest and contemplate in a short time) for commentary:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease."

Thoughts on this one?

[....]

This particular quote can be found in Journals of Ayn Rand, page 73. It is not Kant, but Rand.

Te-he. I knew it was Rand. Not exactly a "pellucid" comment. We all have our moments. ;-)

E-

___

Ellen -

It appears to me as if what we have in that passage is a failed attempt at one of the rhetorical flourishes Rand was so terribly good at, and executed with great skill in writing and in her speeches later in life.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Newberry]

Hey Bill,

Was this "All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease" a trap or a mistake of yours?

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Hey Bill,

Was this "All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease" a trap or a mistake of yours?

Michael

Michael -

It was not a mistake. Neither would I call it a trap. It was an illustration of the difficulties in making an evaluation of a writer based on a brief quote. However, to get someone to read the short quote without the context of "This is Rand writing, very early on..." was something most easily achieved by not attributing to Rand when first posting.

Knowledge is contextual. And so is interpreting of an isolated paragraph.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Philip Coates]

MY "INVISIBLE RESPONSES"....AND INTEGRITY SMEARING:

> What I don't understand about you, is that you are not "happy" with the quotes provided. [Michael N]

Michael, my point was that I didn't find -any- of the quotes (except for the one I named) supportive of the idea that Kant is profound, interesting, valuable, a precursor of Objectivism.

One of them doesn't demonstrate an anticipation of the Oist trichotomy. One has a narrow and superficial view of humor. Several of them you posted were simply unintelligible. I couldn't bring myself to respond with more than a few sentences to those quotes, but agreed with you that the problem is that they were hard to untangle or rationalistic. I also responded by making a parody of them. It's legitimate to respond with humor in some cases.

Then several people --- ignoring the fact that I RESPONDED IN SEVERAL POSTS by saying that I didn't find the Kant quotes persuasive and gave a succinct reason in each case --- claimed that I had been unwilling to respond at all.

So let's summarize my responses to the Kant Quotes. I actually had 8 DIFFERENT RESPONSES on two different threads, that I recall (maybe there was a ninth?)

1. Bill's enlightenment quote - Response: Kant makes good and interesting points there

2. Roger's trichotomy quote - Response: I don't see this as anticipating Oism, the trichotomy has a very specific meaning (and this ain't it)

3. Roger's humor quote - Response: too narrow a characterization of humor.

4. Your several hard-to-follow quotes - Response: congratulations if you can understand them, I can't ...another point against Kant's value

5. Some of your quotes - Response: rationalistic, packed with floating abstractions (you used the word Platonic) ..another point against Kant's 'interest' and value

6. Some of your quotes - Response: too abstract only with no concretes, explanation ...you agreed with me

7.& 8. Two parodies (which cast some of the above responses in an additional, humorous way)

Even worse than denying that I had **any response**, several people said THIS (LACK OF RESPONSE) DEMONSTRATED I was not engaging them in "Good Faith" and tried to read my mind and suggest rather clearly that I (disingenuously?) wanted to delay or raise side issues or 'meta' issues to derail the conversation, thereby attacking my motives and integrity.

When I pointed out to the person who raised that last issue, viewing him as someone I could talk to and have a friendly discussion with, the reason WHY I consider the 'meta' or method and approach issues important, instead of acknowledging or 'responding' to any of the points I made --- he simply ignored them and escalated his attack on my lack of good faith.

And he broadened it by saying that I was frequently doing this kind of stall or smokescreen? attempt to dodge topics on lots of other occasions.

My shock was that this individual (and one other who supported him) wouldn't have entertained the possibility that my greater interest in issues of method, 'meta' issues, was honestly greater and more what I wanted to talk about (at least at greater length) than some other issues.

WHEN TO CUT YOUR LOSSES:

The policy that I would recommend to everyone is that if you are an honest person who has good reasons for what you want to focus on and it is not that hard to see, in fact most people commend you for your single minded interest in the truth, but you have a 'friend' or interlocutor who maybe is a cynic or always finds some hidden (dark) explanation with regard to people and questions your integrity in this area, you are probably better off not having that kind of friend or debating partner.

Maybe you try once, as I did with REB in my **very important post #26** yesterday, entitled ISSUES OF METHOD, SKILLS, APPROACHES, ATTITUDE, because I thought he simply misunderstood my reasons and that that could be easily corrected.

But when a clear explanation like THAT is ignored, with very rare exceptions you're better off bailing out. You will get absolutely nowhere with such people.

(More important, their view of you is not only unjust, but fundamentally repugnant.)

By the way, I intend to write more somewhere in some venue on the topic of post 26. It's crucial to human success and happiness. And the future of Objectivism.

[Jonathan]

It isn't just in regard to this current focus on Kant. It's even in regard to ~your~ ideas. You do your strip-tease preliminary about what we all have to do before we're worthy of hearing your ideas, then you back off and leave us wondering whether there was any "there" there.

Speaking of which, did Phil ever get around to answering the little quiz that he posted not just here on OL, but on RoR and SOLOP as well?

My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? The contest starts now.

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

J

[Roger Bissell]

It isn't just in regard to this current focus on Kant. It's even in regard to ~your~ ideas. You do your strip-tease preliminary about what we all have to do before we're worthy of hearing your ideas, then you back off and leave us wondering whether there was any "there" there.

Speaking of which, did Phil ever get around to answering the little quiz that he posted not just here on OL, but on RoR and SOLOP as well?

My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? The contest starts now.

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

J

Jonathan, if you're trying to suggest that Phil was simply dodging or stalling, I think you should consider just how unjust and repugnant that is.

If you're simply asking about a point of fact -- well, yes, to my knowledge, Phil has never posted the answers to his "contest," and that is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in my "escalation" of my "attacks on Phil's character" which you quoted above.

I respectfully suggest that if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck -- it owes us more than a hand-waving, diversionary rant in order to convince us that it's not a duck.

REB

[Jonathan]

I am far removed from being a Kant scholar. I've read a number of his major works, not recently except in excerpts. I am not familiar with his writings on aesthetics; I'm not in a position to have an opinion as to whether you're right about his theories leading to postmodern art theory. I don't even have much of an idea of what "postmodern art theory" is, what you mean by that description. So I'm not able to address some of the questions you ask.

I, too, am far removed from being a Kant scholar. I had read his Critique of Judgement a couple of decades ago and haven't read it again since. I've just begun trying to find time to reread it and have discovered, so far, that my memory of it was pretty decent, but I've already found that I had some details wrong and had been confusing certain terms or ideas with those of other thinkers. I wish I had more time (and larger chunks of it) that I could dedicate to studying it.

Having said that, however, I don't trust Newberry's interpretations of Kant and postmodernist aesthetic theorists or artists (or his interpretations of much of anything else, really), and I can't imagine the nightmare that it would be to try to discuss with him something as complex as Kant and various postmodernist's views when I haven't been able to get straight answers out of him regarding his views on much simpler subjects.

J

[Roger Bissell]

I am far removed from being a Kant scholar. I've read a number of his major works, not recently except in excerpts. I am not familiar with his writings on aesthetics; I'm not in a position to have an opinion as to whether you're right about his theories leading to postmodern art theory. I don't even have much of an idea of what "postmodern art theory" is, what you mean by that description. So I'm not able to address some of the questions you ask.

I, too, am far removed from being a Kant scholar. I had read his Critique of Judgement a couple of decades ago and haven't read it again since. I've just begun trying to find time to reread it and have discovered, so far, that my memory of it was pretty decent, but I've already found that I had some details wrong and had been confusing certain terms or ideas with those of other thinkers. I wish I had more time (and larger chunks of it) that I could dedicate to studying it.

Having said that, however, I don't trust Newberry's interpretations of Kant and postmodernist aesthetic theorists or artists (or his interpretations of much of anything else, really), and I can't imagine the nightmare that it would be to try to discuss with him something as complex as Kant and various postmodernist's views when I haven't been able to get straight answers out of him regarding his views on much simpler subjects.

J

Jonathan and Ellen -- I am not a Kantian scholar either, and I share Jonathan's reluctance to get into Kant, Postmodernism, etc. with Michael N., but mainly because I would like to try to understand Kant's Critique of Judgment better myself first.

However, I will offer a couple of quotes from Kant's COJ that are, again, suggestive of ideas Rand developed. (Recall that I argued that Kant's and Rand's views of humor were startlingly similar, despite the claims of some that Kant was simplistic &c.)

1. In section 49 (The faculties of the mind which constitute genius), Kant wrote:

The imagination (as a productive faculty of cognition) is a powerful agent for creating, as it were, a second nature out of the material supplied to it by actual nature...[T]he material can be borrowed by us from nature in accordance with [the law of association], but be worked up by us into something else--namely what surpasses nature.

Two comments on this: first, Kant's "creating...a second nature" I take to be equivalent to Rand's "re-creation of reality." (Kant is not the first philosopher, of art or otherwise, to use this phrase.) Secondly, "something...[that] surpasses nature" I take to be equivalent to Aristotle's and Rand's view of art as things as the "can" and "ought" to be (instead of as they are).

2. In the following paragraph, Kant says:

Such representations of the imagination may be termed ideas. This is partly because they at least strain after something lying out beyond the confines of experience, and so seek to approximate to a presentation of rational concepts (i.e., intellectual ideas), thus giving to these concepts the semblance of an objective reality.

Comment: Rand writes in "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" of the function of art being the presenting man's metaphysical concepts in a form graspable by his perception, or, as Kant puts it "giving to these concepts the semblance of an objective reality."

I don't doubt that the very careful Objectivist intellectuals here on OL and elsewhere can pick these quotes apart and show how, in so many ways, Kant did ~not~ mean the same thing that Rand did. Objectivists in general seem very good at highlighting the ~differences~ between Rand's ideas and those of others. Sometimes those differences are real and important. But sometimes it seems that the concern is merely to try to save Rand from guilt by association with "evil" philosophers such as Kant.

As against this focus on differences, I maintain that it is clear to anyone looking ~dispassionately~ and ~objectively~ at the above Kant quotes, with no axe to grind, that there are important ~similarities~ between Kant's and Rand's views on art, too. Whether or not Rand got any insight or inspiration from Kant, along with the intense rage at the implications of his various doctrines, is another matter.

Perhaps we will never know. But I suggest that Peikoff's approvingly quoting Hegel (another vicious monster of 19th century philosophy) in the front of his Objectivism book indicates that Kant might not have been regarded by Rand as an unmitigated evil either. He certainly isn't by me.

reb

REB