regi

Members
  • Content count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About regi

  • Rank
    $$$

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    usabig.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Greenville, SC

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Randall Chester Saunders
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking
  1. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    The utility is obvious. What makes it art?
  2. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    What are the "special sciences?" I know what the physical sciences are. Randy
  3. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Agreed. There is damn little beauty in anything called art.
  4. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Well, that's to be expected, since psychologists, philosophers, and even Rand have so confused the nature of the emotions: If you are truly interested in the nature of the emotions, please see the article, "Feelings." The following is from that article: "The emotions provide a direct perceptual experience of the content of consciousness. While we are conscious of our thoughts intellectually, the emotions provide a direct "visceral" experience corresponding to conceptual consciousness. Making plans for something good is accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and anticipation; thinking or contemplating doing, or having done, something we think is wrong will be accompanied by feelings of guilt or regret; thinking about someone we admire, desire, and value very highly is accompanied by feelings of love and affection; considering something evil and ugly is accompanied by feelings of anger or revulsion. "In our actual experience, we do not usually distinguish between our thoughts and their accompanying feelings and experience them as units. The feelings and the thoughts are integrated into objects of consciousness which turn abstract thoughts into concretes which are directly perceived. "Our emotions, as automatic reactions to our immediate consciousness, is the way our human consciousness enables us to directly enjoy or "physically" experience both direct perception and our conceptual identification and evaluation of the things we perceive simultaneously. "The emotions are our nature's way of converting the abstract elements of conceptual consciousness, our concepts, values, and thoughts, into "physical" experiences. The emotions make our minds, as well as our bodies, sensuous. "Since it is the enjoyment of our lives that is their purpose, the purpose of the emotions is to enable us to enjoy our lives, particularly that most human aspect of our lives as humans, our minds. When the emotions are not a source of joy, but of suffering, it is an indication of something wrong. The thing that is wrong can be physiological, but more frequently the thing that is wrong is an individual's view of life, one's values, one's thoughts, and one's choices, and the thing that is wrong with them is they are contrary to reality and dominated by unrealistic views and desires." Randy
  5. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    This is a wonderful example of the many times Rand was, "this close," to the truth, then missed it, like her epistemology. It is not art that brings man's concepts to the perceptual level, it it our emotions and the purpose of them. There is another odd mistake in that paragraph. Art cannot concretize the metaphysical, the metaphysical is the concrete. Art might be the concretization of an ideal or principle, as an example, illustration, or model, but one cannot concretize what is already concrete. The importance of art it is highly overblown. The aesthetic sense is very similar to the sense of humor. The capacity to enjoy emotionally the recognition of beauty is a wonderful thing, just as the ability to appreciate irony and exaggeration as humorous is a wonder thing, but many people just do not have much of a sense of humor; others, for various reasons, have vary little capacity for enjoying beauty. Neither is necessary to a fully successful and happy life. Nice if you have them, it doesn't matter if you don't. Since most art is not "beautiful" to begin with and most "art" represents ideas and viewpoints that are not only wrong, but frequently vile and evil, it is very difficult to honestly make a case for the value of art. If there is any true value in any art, it is swamped by all the harmful influence of most of what goes by the name art. Randy
  6. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    It was not my point at all, but I can't help how something seems to someone else. If I've not made myself clear, I'll take the blame for that. Randy
  7. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Of course not. I know you don't realize it, but you've just made the point I was making. Randy
  8. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    I agree with you. I almost never use the word "subjective" just because it is so ambiguous. But other people do use it, and I think the issue is worth assressing. The question is bound to come up in a discussion of aesthetics because beauty, like humor, depends on an individuals own beliefs, values, and thoughts.
  9. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Certainly not. As I wrote earlier, "What determines whether something is objective or subjective is what one's reasons and evaluation are based on, whether they are based on reason alone from the evidence of objective reality (objective) or are based on one's feelings, desires, superstitions, and prejudices alone (subjective). I think the confusion arises from not recognizing the fact that one's feelings, desires, superstitions and prejudices are themselves facts about which we can be conscious and reason about. If one has a superstitious belief in something, any reasoning based on that belief is subjective, because there is no objective evidence for the belief. If one recognizes they have a superstitious belief and identifies it as a superstitious belief based on reasoning from objective principles, for example, that identification is objective. Our feelings cannot be an objective basis for our thinking, but we can certainly think objectively about our feelings. Randy
  10. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Then you've made a mistake. Objective reason does not require either omniscience or infallibility, it only requires honesty with oneself, that one has done the best they can to insure their premises are based on reality. But you knew that, didn't you? Randy
  11. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    Is seeing a tree and then objectively identifying you saw the tree not make the tree objective? A "feeling" is only a perception, like seeing, but what is being perceived is actual physiological states of the body. They are just as real, and physical by the way, as trees are. Randy
  12. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    By the way, that is wrong. If your premises are wrong (garbage in) your reasoning is not objective. Unlike formal logic, objective reason includes the necessity of insuring your premises are based on reality or derived by reason from the facts of reality. Any reasoning based on false premises, on faith, or prejudice, or feelings, or whims, or mystic beliefs or assumptions or guesses is not objective reasoning. Objective means based on observable evidence of reality or other knowledge established by objective reason from observable evidence of reality. Randy
  13. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    That's my premise. I don't think we disagree. I was only addressing the misuse of the word subjective to mean what occurs in an individual's consciousness. I quite agree that "objective reason" is a redundancy, but the mechanics of reason can be used irrationally (rationalization and sophistry for example), so sometimes the redundancy is necessary to differentiate the correct use of the rational process from the incorrect use. I certainly don't agree that you can get something, "epistemological," out of nothing, unless you believe the content of dreams are ontologically real. I have no idea what you mean by "metaphysical." In philosophy, the metaphysical is objective reality--the immutable what is. There is a different meaning of the word metaphysical but it is only used by various mystics and spiritualists. Randy
  14. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    What are, "aesthetic responses?" If such things actually exist they have an objective identification. If they do not have an objective identifcation, they do not exist. If you label everything that is experienced consciously, "subjective," there is nothing objective because the entire universe is only known by means of our "subjective" conscious perception of it. Every thought we have, all the reasoning we do and every choice we make becomes subjective because we do those thing in our own private consciousness. You can see how absurd it becomes if everything is subjective just because it occurs in our own consciousness--it makes objectivity impossible. There would be no such thing as an objective thought, and objective concept, or an objective choice. Is everything you just wrote subjective because it all came from your, "subjective," mind? Of course it isn't because that is not what determines what is subjetive and what is objective. Randy
  15. Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

    NO! That's no what subjective means. This terrible confusion introduced by certain "economists" and some academic philosophers is totally wrong. I've already addressed the mistake in my previous post. "Subjective," does not mean whatever occurs in an individual's mind else there would be no such thing as objective reason which only occurs in individual minds. What determines whether something is objective or subjective is what one's reasons and evaluations are based on, whether is based on reason alone from the evidence of objective reality (objective) or is based on one's feelings, desires, superstitions, and prejudices (subjective). If I have a specific physical condition that makes me incapable of tolerating certain foods, my evaluation of those foods as harmful to me is not subjective, but objective, even though that evaluation is made in my mind and only pertains to me. If I evaluate some food I've never tried as harmful to me because I imagine it's yucky from the way it looks, that is a subjective evaluation. It's not the fact that an evaluation is mine that makes it subjective, it is what I base that evaluation on. Objectively identifying a characteristic of one's own personality is not subjective, and evaluating things in relationship to one's own nature is not subjective. I think that is easy enough to understand, but if I've not made it clear, feel free to ask questions or criticize. Randy