• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Jonathan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jonathan Smith
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking
  1. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Yeah, it stands for Architecture is Art. J
  2. U of Minnesota Morris students were taken off the air during their student radio broadcast because they had said the word "tranny," which the leftist activist station manager claimed, falsely, was a violation of FCC law. A university cop was brought in, and was apparently ready to arrest them and enforce the just-made-up "law." When the fake law was discovered to be fake, the station manager made up new accusations and an additional fake law. And when that didn't work, found some actual minor violations that might stick. The fallout is going to be fun to watch. J
  3. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Oh, hey, check this out:
  4. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Tony, if you want to refute someone's position, the idea would then be to provide info which refutes your opponent rather than that which supports him. Hahaha. J
  5. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Oh, of course! Rand's glaring contradictions are "so minor." Nothin' to see here folks, move along. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. When it comes to St. Ayn, A doesn't have to be A, at least not all of the time. Sometimes it can be non-A, and it's just "so minor." J
  6. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    You're making shit up again, and having arguments with imaginary people who take the imaginary positions that you assign to them. Nutty, kooky, Rand-idolizer crap.
  7. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    I've been using Rand's notion of "objectivity," which is the act of vlitionally adhering to reality by using logic and reason. She didn't follow that notion when doing her "Objective Esthetics." An example of lack of objectivity would be someone saying that art is a selective re-creation of reality which cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, but then also claiming that something is art which she explicitly says does not re-create reality and which serves a utilitarian purpose. Rand is the one who requires identification of the artist's meaning. that's her requirement for an objective judgment. Judgments which do not do so are not objectively vet by her formulation. Rand was basically ignorant of all of the art forms other than literature. She came up with a theory of literature and then just arbitrarily expected the other arts to conform to the same theory. And she also began with her personal hatred for "modern art" and wanted to come up with rules which she thought would invalidate it as an art form, neglecting to realize that those silly rules also invalidate art forms that she wanted to be valid. It's an irrational mess. After years of stubborn evasions, Tony, you recently finally admitted that her views on architecture were contradictions and rationalizations. In other words, as I said above, she didn't apply the Objectivist Epistemology to the subject, but deviated from it to the point of absurdity. Her "Objectivist Esthetics" is tainted throughout by such irrationality and anti-objectivity. J
  8. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    See, the way that reality works is that when people give their opinions on things, they reveal what they know and what they don't know! I agree, totally! My epistemology is that I don't accept contradictions, where Rand clearly accepted them in the field of art, and twisted herself into pretzels in order to deny reality and cling to her predetermined opinions. My point has long been that her so-called Objectivist Esthetics isn't objective, doesn't follow her philosophy's stated epistemological tenets, and doesn't actually deal substantively with the field of aesthetics, but mostly with ethical judgments of art. I wish that she would have adhered to her stated epistemology when considering the field of aesthetics, instead of going all nonsensical subjectivist whim-worshippy. J
  9. What's Up With Harvey?

    I just threw up a little. J
  10. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Is that a sculpture by one of the Cordair artists?
  11. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    As unaware, unobservant, and kooky as you are, I doubt that 30 years is enough time for anything to get through to you. Nah. In these areas that we're talking about, Rand didn't gather any "conceptual knowledge," but just bluffed and bloviated. She just kind of guessed her way through certain topics, such as the art forms that she knew nothing about. It's like reading an essay that a dumb junior high school kid would write after not having read the relevant material. Her thoughts are superficial and reveal near ignorance masquerading as deep and refined authority. J
  12. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Heh. Everything becomes universalized with you, doesn't it? If one item which unites art with utiilty is corny, then so are all other items which do so?
  13. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    It's a hypothetical, so the idea would be to recognize that the bronze figure is the art part of the combination of art and utility. You've seen bronze sculptures that you consider to be art, no? J
  14. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    No, what I'm saying is that an artist should not be held responsible for your retarded interpretations of his work, and your eagerness to morally condemn him regardless of what he actually believes and what his art represents. But it's fine with me if you insist on playing your small part in making the Objectivist Esthetics even more of a laughing stock. Rand's ideas on art do have some value, and probably could be salvaged, but if her followers refuse to scrap all of the junk intertwined, then so be it. Youre losing relevance exponentially.
  15. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    And? Are you agreeing with Kant or disagreeing? J