Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content count

    23,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Brant Gaede

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tucson, AZ
  • Interests
    All kinds of stuff

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Brant Gaede
  • Description
    Born in 1944 in Tucson, AZ. SF Aidman Vietnam combat veteran. Autodidact. Can drive the big rig. Hike and fly. Weep and write. Shoot and scoot.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Rand novels, The David, Shane, The Ox-Bow Incident, Forbidden Planet, Things to Come, The Wild Bunch, Oliver, Star Wars, Charade, North by Northwest, Psycho, Vertigo, Red River, Empire of the Sun, etc. Music: only the good stuff--e.g., Lynyrd Skynyrd "Simple Man"
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

46,009 profile views
  1. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    What is missing? What is missing is what is missing. The unknown. The uncreated. The future both in knowledge and in creativity. Objectivity is 100% backward looking. Here is an example: if you had purchased Appel computer stock when Steve Jobs came back in 1997 and held it until today you'd be up +9000%. This can be objectively validated today, but not back in 1997. Professors don't create--or seldom do--but are great--if they are great and not dogmatic leftists moralistic smucks--at telling you what IS. As great as what is is that's only part of the story. No more. "Objectivity" is reality validation, that's all. Make sure you're right then go ahead. --Brant
  2. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Wow! --Brant from another planet
  3. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    So much of Rand's philosophizing was effectively argument by mere asseveration. Objectivism is both powerful and simple if the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not layered onto it. There is no room in Objectivism for esthetics but all the room in the world for it in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Spending a lifetime trying to master her philosophy--an impossible task to ever complete--is intellectual insanity. Leonard Peikoff tried with all his might and ended up with no discernable philosophy of his own leaving him free to spout irrational nonsense. --Brant
  4. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Did Rand ever claim there was an "Objectivist Esthetics"? --Brant the implication sure is there
  5. What's Up With Harvey?

    She is not the "former" Mrs. Peikoff. --Brant
  6. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Awful, subjectively speaking. --Brant God-awful
  7. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Zip? I suggest you go back to back and forth. Experience to knowledge to experience to more knowledge, etc. Integrate or disintegrate or turn into dogmatic lead. --Brant
  8. There is no evil in economics, only in people. --Brant
  9. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Architecture: the selective re-creation of a cave. Music: the selective re-creation of sounds and noise. Dance: the selective re-creation of movement. --Brant: the selective re-creation of a man--oops! I went too far (inertia) so there!
  10. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    I think too much is being made of this subject. Reason has nothing to do with what Randy is calling "subjective." Reasoning is either rational or irrational. Reason is rational while reasoning can be either. Reasoning refers to reason for validation of the use of the process. This discussion is drifting off esthetics. --Brant I admit I'm speaking off the top of my head
  11. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    I consider this a rationalization, but out of respect to you I'll Additionally reply tomorrow when I'm sober. --Brant premises are not garbage in, BTW, "data" is--or could be (cap't Morgan spiced rum) edit: nothing to add
  12. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Well, you can objectively reason to a wrong conclusion. GIGO. Also, subjective reason(ing) is an oxymoron. Therefore, objective reason(ing) is a redundancy. The objectivity is in the logical structure. Reason is the search for objectivity. Science is mostly verified by workable technology. However, that doesn't mean the science is right. A better theory may arise. You don't refute Einstein--you replace him. You don't refute QM--you replace it. In the meantime certain things work or are supported by Einstein and QM. Same with Newton. What we call "gravity" may not be gravity; it may not exist. Same with "instinct." But something does. Reality is objective--that is, it is what it is. In that sense it's immutable. Reasoning is not because of the importation of data into logic. Then there are flights of fancy with weak or no data. Creativity. Something (epistemological) out of nothing (metaphysical) which may become nothing but art (created becomes objective) or something that didn't exist before (smarty phone). Etc. Rand said rational men have no arguments except from errors of knowledge. Thus the central conflict in Atlas Shrugged between the men of the mind. Unfortunately, she found too many truths that aren't there well camouflaged by her by those many that are. The latter are much more important. --Brant
  13. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Especially valuable post. Thanks. --Brant
  14. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Subjectivity is a much broader topic than addressed by Rand which automatically makes her intellectualized rants doubtful if not bogus. Did she ever take von Mises on about the subjective theory of value (valuing)? I don't think so. She did champion von Mises, however--generally sanction. I have not much interest in Orthodox Objectivism 101--been there; done that--or living within her philosophy--her philosophy not Objectivism--and seeing reality through her prisms. That way of doing business is worth investigating, not adopting. Note that I am not debating whether Rand said this or that or whether your understanding of her on this topic is correct. My POV is 180 degrees different. If you had properly referenced her quotes--article, book, page number--then your post would have scholarly legs and transcendent value. But anyone doing serious research has no use or time for less. It's as if your post never happened except for those interested in people trapped in a philosophy they think they understand but don't. They see trees all about them--seemingly wonderful trees some wonderful indeed--but not the true forest. --Brant
  15. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    I'll let whoever can and wants to figure it out. You fail on both counts. --Brant