Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Scott's selling point is that Gen 4 solves the manmade climate change issue if CO2 is the problem, regardless of whether the climate change doomsday folks are right or wrong. Gen 4 doesn't produce CO2.

    Scott has misidentified the problem. The actual problem is people wanting to control and punish other people. Gen 4 doesn't solve that problem, but  removes some of the excuses and satisfaction. So, in order to make Gen 4 palatable, they'll have to find a way to make it include more control and punishment -- and more costs -- more than what they've been advocating and proposing in regard to old energies and technologies. How can Gen 4 be used to reverse the concept of merit? Until there is a good answer to that question, it will face strong opposition. 

    • Like 1
  2. 23 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    I've never been to Paris and don't expect ever to go there.  Notre Dame is a building I've never seen and had no expectation of ever seeing in physical actuality, only in photographs and drawings and paintings.

    So why do I feel that its having been badly damaged is terrible and that its total destruction, which apparently was narrowly escaped, would have been horrifically terrible?

    It's a weird building. Beautiful yet ugly, and even creepy in ways. Flying buttresses? They're nightmares. Exoskeleton/spider-alien. But the building works as a whole, aesthetically. It wouldn't have the same impact without the dark characteristics.

  3. 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

    How about "If Kamhi says, 'It's not art!'"?

    --Brant

    Yes, or anyone who screams "Not ART!!!" as loudly or louder than Kamhi does. Whomever dedicates the largest portion of their life to denying the validity of other people's aesthetic responses wins, and becomes the universal standard and limit of cognition and of aesthetic response.

    J

  4. 22 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

    I’m not knowledgeable or passionate about art but I have followed many of your conversations with interest. When you  point out the inconsistency that music doesn’t fit her criteria but she called it art anyway, they break into gibberish or avoid the issue, it’s comical, I’m always entertained by it.

    I also don’t get the either–or rigidity regarding whether this or that discipline is art, say, architecture. Keeping water out is utility not art, but a textured roof that looks like waves of wind over tall grass and costs three times a traditional roof and raises the cost of the home by 8% is art because it was done for contemplation and aesthetic consideration, the essential characteristic of art. Insisting on the absence of utility strikes me as definition by exclusion.

    We can make distinctions, we can call it fine art or pure art when there is no utility at all. But if someone’s favorite sculpture turns out, unbeknownst to them, to be a personal aircraft — you press this button here and wings fold out and you can fly away in the thing — then now they have to pick a new favorite sculpture because this one isn’t art anymore?  Seems like definition by non–essentials to me.

     

    Well said.

    J

  5. 5 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

    Hi, Jonathan. Can I ask what you think what the definition of art is, and if you think that there are some things that couldn't be called art? (I apologize if you've explained before, I haven't seen your comments to Kamhi that you mentioned.)

    "The" definition? Heh.

    Um, I think that people can have differing views on what is or is not art. I just think that any definition and criteria that anyone offers up should be consistent, non-contradictory, and it should treat everyone's aesthetic responses as being equally valid, not just Ayn Rand's and Michelle Kamhi's. If one's definition and criteria require, say, communication of intended meanings, then that should be true of all art forms, and then all alleged art works should be objectively tested, rather than Rand's or Kamhi's favorites just being arbitrarily and falsely asserted as having succeeded in communicating.

    As for your question some things not being art, I think the question is irrelevant. That's not a valid way of doing philosophy of aesthetics. One doesn't start out by imposing one's arbitrary wish to exclude certain things and then work back from there. When you do that, you end up with the contradictory mess that the Objectivist aesthetics is. You invent irrational standards, and then you end up with nothing qualifying as art.

    J

  6. The unintended result was the destruction of art. Nothing is art by Objectivism's definition and criteria. Perhaps someday one thing might become art, and then another, but, for now, nothing qualifies or has been objectively proven to qualify. Objectivishists value denying art status to abstract art more than they value consistency, rationality and objectivity. They will not abandon their rules which they use to reject abstract art, even when they are shown that those same rules have the same devastating effect when equally applied to their favorite works which they falsely claim are validly classified as art. 

  7. 17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    [Jane Lytvynenko:] Of course, it didn’t help that the president of the United States — while the building was still on fire — made these bizarrely conspiracy-tinged remarks: “”They think it was caused by, at this moment, they don’t know, but they think it was caused by renovation. And I hope that’s the reason. Renovation, you know, what’s that all about?”

    Hmmm. Conspiracy-tinged? WTF.

    So, in today's world, NOT coming to an immediate conclusion that no malicious intent was involved is to present a conspiracy-tinged mindset? Merely keeping an open mind and expressing hope that a devastating event was an accident is vicious? Speculating about possible causes that might be worth considering is now bad and kooky?

    J

    • Like 1
  8. 10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    The doctor collected data and made logical extrapolations. Additional data helped confirm.

    I assume Kamhi believes in AGW. Or should.

    --Brant

    No data were ever involved. It started with theory based on feelings. Just certain people's feelings: the people who believe themselves to be the universal standard and limit of cognition, and of aesthetic response. Then rules were made, and were applied only to certain things so as to eliminate them from the realm of Art. THAT'S NOT ART!!! Those exact same rules have never been applied to the things which the rule-makers wish to accept as qualifying as Art. How dare anyone suggest that they be so applied!

  9. Auntie has a new post at her blog:

     

    Quote

     

    What Semmelweis Taught Me

    What does a book report on the life of a nineteenth-century Hungarian obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) have to do with artand art education, the subjects I’m now immersed in? Quite a lot, as it happens...

     

     

     

    She won't be publishing my comment:

    "The Semmelweis in me makes me repeat this unanswered challenge once again, Ms. Kamhi: Prove that anything has ever qualified as art by your definition and criteria. Objectively demonstrate it. As of this moment, nothing has ever been shown to qualify."

    J

  10. You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know.

    They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so.

    There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy.

    Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers.

    J

    • Like 2
  11. 28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I don't understand the unfunny-these-days comedy world's mocking on the Nunes lawsuit.

    It really is fucking weird. It's like, "Isn't it funny that we're saying that this fucker we hate is motivated by what we just made up, and therefore he's so petty and small so let's sneer at him, tee hee hee?"

    They're all acting like it's just the funniest shit ever.

    J

    • Like 1
  12. I think that the core issue is Section 230 exemption. Ted brought it up back when he grilled Zuck. Zuck stiffened. A few of his circuits popped. He and da rest of da boyz want to keep their 230. They also want to be political and put their dirty thumbs on the scale. Nunes is the first step in finding out which they want the most.

    J

  13. 26 minutes ago, Peter said:

    He was wrong to say that, though the President does seem to like being in the spotlight. So?

    Yeah, and which politician doesn't have a massive ego, and issues with narcissism? Um, did Savior Obama abhor the spotlight? Heh.

     

    28 minutes ago, Peter said:

    If I were on the President's staff I wouldn't put up with "his temper" though.

    Well, we don't really know much about Trump's alleged "temper." I can't count the number of times that I've watched Trump deliver a message in a happy, confident tone, or even a tone of laughing at the opposition, only to see the left and its press report it as having been a temper tantrum, meltdown tirade, wig-flipping, enraged freakout. I've never seen Trump displaying "his temper."

    J

     

  14. Kellyanne's husband, whom know one had heard of prior to hearing of Kellyanne, and who is regularly latching onto his wife's fame in order to get media attention, has diagnosed Trump as having narcissistic personality disorder:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434485-conways-husband-suggests-trump-has-narcissistic-personality-disorder?fbclid=IwAR2z7S7-8YAI6qKFBO126KfK0cZonfPeZS5TghK9ksSyGEty9SjW3vbi_gE&fbclid=IwAR2HTgYAqhnlI-NKM-WXo5Oma3S6AZ2GkhihUDYCZDRwlw5DypJJKVm98SM

    Conway's husband suggests Trump has narcissistic personality disorder

    Mr. Conway seems to have some serious problems with his wife's success. It's actually really sad how frequently he feels the need to use her to get into the spotlight and piss on her boss, and her work.

    J

  15. 15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Confirmation bias is its own reward ...

    Indeed it is! Ahem.

    Tee hee hee.

     

    15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    ... although Objectivism suggests that conclusions should follow rational investigation.

    Oh, but it's not only Objectivism that suggests it. And Objectivism wasn't the first to suggest it.

    It's so fricking cool that you easily understand the concept on this thread, Billy. Hopefully someday you'll be able to bring that understanding to another thread.

    J

     

  16. 11 hours ago, anthony said:

    And I repeat, that for every effect there is a cause. A painting does not exist without a maker. They are connected. There's nothing "imaginary" about postmodern artworks, we've all seen them, and nothing imaginary about the artists. Nothing imaginary about the acclaim their work is often received with. It is redundant to name some or any personalities. I don't "expect" more than discussion about the intentions of artists, the affective power of a pictoral 'idea' and the final effect art has on culture, but you've succeeded in shutting that down. 

    Tony, you don't have the ability to distinguish between what's imaginary and what's not.

    J