• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Jonathan last won the day on January 10

Jonathan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

283 Excellent

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

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If Billy posts stuff about the pretend consensus often enough, it will become true.
  2. Oh, no! Putin denies the pretend consensus? The one which I've posted proof that it has been demonstrated as being false, and which Billy has refused to address? Heh. J
  3. Hypothesis falsified: The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed... But it's still gonna happen, and we need to stop freedom cuz the scientists have made new predictions which are less specific and even more certain. Forget about those past predictions. Just go by how much confidence we're expressing right now. J
  4. Billy, is there anything that you wouldn't be eager to believe was caused by global warming? Anthying at all? There must be something where you'd think that people were just being silly in assigning it to global warming. No?
  5. The way that modern "science" works is that you make extreme and scary predictions based on your hypothesis, and then, when they don't come true, you do not conclude that your hypothesis has been falsified, but that new predictions, which are even scarier, need to be made and publicly promoted as being logically justified following he failure of the last predictions.
  6. OMG, did manmade global warming climate change emergency crisis doom cause those fires, Billy? Is it settled science? Should the deniers be thrown into the fires?
  7. I'm still wondering what work you were talking about. J
  8. Jonathan


    Jonathan, Not popular art. True. The art world is actually very complex, and all sorts of styles are valued, including representational art. There are even very old-fashioned-ish artists who are making very good livings selling tradition figurative paintings today. Marketing is applicable to art just as it is to any other profession, and people can recognize the value of trading something which has succeeded in the market, even though the thing may not be an item that the trader personally likes or finds much use for. Financially speaking, a crowd draws a crowd. It doesn't matter if it's "modern art" or some other fashion or trend which has happened throughout all of history, people will latch onto and make money off of crazes, and then, later, on retrospectives of past crazes, and then on a resurgence of the craze with a new twist, etc. To answer your question: No, no one is going to be talked out of their own tastes, or our of investing in the popularity of others' tastes, by philosophical zealots, especially ones who are generally aesthetically deficient. Self-unaware dorks posing as cool kids and looking down their noses at what they dislike isn't a good marketing strategy. J
  9. What work is that? Do you think that anyone is buying your bullshit? J
  10. Jonathan


    The above is true of almost all art, not just "modern art." Such is the nature of subjective phenomena. And, in my experience, it's especially true of Objectivishists: Generally, they don't participate in the art world, except for consuming Rand's art, and also virtue-signaling about (but not actually purchasing) works of art which they've been told (or have assumed) properly conform to Rand's theories and tastes. They generally tend to be quite aesthetically stunted and deficient, and uninterested in the art world. They're interests and cognitive strengths tend to be elsewhere.
  11. Jonathan


    The infection has returned to full effect once again. Our hero is back to tilting at his straw man Kant with the same old fierce dedication: J
  12. Hey! Check it out! Randroid aesthetic sychophant Alexandra York is still alive and serving her long-dead master: "Art at its best is created to communicate life-serving values beautifully as did the pre-historic cave painters and as serious contemporary representative artists do today; thus, art can afford a spiritual experience as well as an aesthetic one. Good decorative (abstract) art is valid as an aesthetic experience but communicates nothing more. “Art” as nonsense or novelty is absurd or offensive to any mature individual..." Same old unsupported assertions. Same old tack of imposing one's own personal aesthetic and cognitive limitations on all of mankind, setting oneself up as the universal standard while arbitrarily denying others' experiences. Where is the objective proof to back up the unsupported claims of the validity and depth of spiritual experiences that have allegedly been properly "communicated" and the invalidity of others? J
  13. So, no aesthetics involved, in your view? J
  14. It's cute that climate fools are attempting to match their little actions to their words, but they miss the point entirely. We need punishments now. Voluntarism? Choosing to make one's deeds consistent with one's professed beliefs? Heh. Silly children. No. Michael Mann needs to be put in charge. He's the left's most expert expert on climate, and therefore also an expert on politics, economics, philosophy and every fucking thing else. Climate knowledge trumps all other knowledge. Your freedom needs to end. You need to experience pain. You need to obey.