• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 9thdoctor

  1. A hagiography is a type of biography. PARC wasn't a biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography
  2. Another hagiography? There hasn't been one yet. I'm looking forward to Milgram's book. She's had access to the archives, unlike Barbara Branden and Anne Heller. I expect at least a few bombshells. And lots of firecrackers. Previously unknown factual stuff. It sounds like she's put a lot of investigative work into it. We can all judge editorializing for what it is.
  3. It’s not incumbent on me to enunciate a hypothesis about the roots of postmodern art in order to critique your claims about Kant. Any more than a climate change “denier” has to come up with a theory that predicts next years sea ice levels before saying that Al Gore is full of shit and that his past predictions have been falsified. Or an atheist has to explain the origin of the universe to dismiss the claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it via his noodly appendage. Not that I have no thoughts on the matter, but for our purposes here it suffices to say “I don’t know and neither do you”. Triggered? It appears that my most recent comment on your work is about 8 months old, and the one before that is 3 years old. Sounds like you needn’t worry, the evidence doesn’t show you’ve been triggering me. Your name only came up here because I was pointing Jonathan to the part of the interview about Kant. We have a long running (mild) disagreement about whether Rand had an idea that she simply never wrote about, or was talking through her hat when she referenced COJ. I grant the former a higher probability than he does. The material in this latest interview doesn't strengthen my case. I think your writings on Kant’s esthetics are an embarrassment to Objectivism, but we’ve been living with Peter Schwartz’s Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty far longer. That’s been far more consequential, IMO.
  4. That was sarcasm. If you're familiar with her Marginalia you know this is par for the course. Though usually there's more content. E.g. here, from C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man: So in the pre-science age, there was no power of majorities over minorities – and the Middle Ages were a period of love and equality, and the oppression began only in the U.S.A. (!!!) The abysmal bastard! I don't think you could call our previous interactions a debate. Here are the first things I was able to find using the search tool:
  5. You're probably already aware, but in one of her essays there's a throwaway line directing the reader to consult CoJ for the foundation of modern (bad) art. She leaves the reader to figure out what element of the book she means. But maybe she did read it, I'd say there's much better than a zero probability. BTW I have CoJ as a PDF file, I opened it and hit page down a bunch of times and the first thing my eye landed on was the paragraph above. Which basically says that aesthetic judgements are always subjective. Not logical. Maybe that's what she objected to. Though Kant certainly wasn't the first thinker to say that. Still, this makes better sense than anything Newberry has written on the Sublime.
  6. Yeah, probably. But wouldn't it be great if she left behind a marginal note in a book on Kant, reading "here's where modern art came from"? At least then we'd know if her claim had anything to do with his concept of the Sublime. Maybe it had to do with something else altogether. How about here: If we wish to discern whether anything is beautiful or not, we do not refer the representation of it to the object by means of understanding with a view to cognition, but by means of the imagination (acting perhaps in conjunction with understanding) we refer the representation to the subject and its feeling of pleasure or displeasure. The judgement of taste, therefore, is not a cognitive judgement, and so not logical, but is aesthetic−which means that it is one whose determining ground cannot be other than subjective. With the letters BS double underlined in Rand's hand in the margin. And BASTARD at the bottom of the page. If only.
  7. There's an English translation: https://objectivismefr.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/ShoshanaMilgramInterview.pdf Scroll down to page 15 and there's discussion of her reading of Kant. Evidently she didn't leave behind any annotated books from/about him, a shame for those of us who'd like to know what aspect of the Critique of Judgement she regarded as being the genesis of modern art (meaning the bad stuff). I suppose we'll have continue to settle for analyses by recognized experts: https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/6225-making-sense-of-kant-s-senseless-sublime?highlight=WyJuZXdiZXJyeSIsImthbnQiLCJrYW50J3MiLCIna2FudCJd https://atlassociety.org/about-us/staff/16-michael-newberry
  8. Bob, news flash: that's exactly the way it works! Step 2 ends where step 1 ended. From longitude 0 and .159 miles from the south pole (in an earlier post I used feet), travel west for one mile and you will land on...brace yourself...longitude 0 and .159 miles from the south pole. Now give your forehead a gigantic slap, then type out an apology to all the people on this thread who you insulted.
  9. Yeah, like Michael Palin circling the pole 264 times in the example I took the time to type out for Bob's benefit (along with an embedded video I took the time to cue up to the exact relevant moment), which he dismissed by saying he doesn't watch videos. Then he insults everyone by calling them "logically feeble". Imagine getting stuck with an idiot like Bob as a teacher. Personally, I don't have to imagine, I went through it.
  10. Argh!!! Any longitude will work. The furthest latitude from the south pole is whatever is 6,120.34 feet away. The circumference of the circle (the degree of latitude you will follow when you go west) can be no larger than 5,280 feet in order for your last step to land you on the same degree of longitude that you started on. The formula for the circumference of a circle is 2πr. 5,280 / 2π is 840.34, that's the radius of the circle (with the south pole in the middle). 5,280 + 840.34 = 6,120.34, your starting point. What degree of latitude is that? A degree of latitude is 69.407 miles at the pole, so it'll be 89.X South (I'm sure you can figure it out if you really need to know). Other solutions rely on you making multiple westerly revolutions, so the next distance that'll work is one using a circle that's half the circumference of one mile. And on and on, until you're making 264 revolutions in the example already provided.
  11. ROTFLMAO!! This is no time for mere LOL's. That thing is brilliant.
  12. Watch what Michael Palin does: He actually travels east instead of west, but no matter, just assume he walked west instead. It looks like the circle he's walking in is about 20 feet in circumference, so let's assume it's precisely 20 feet. If, to satisfy step 2, he were to do that walk 264 times (exactly one mile), his end point would be exactly the same degree of longitude as where he started. He could then walk north one mile to satisfy step 3.
  13. If no representative of the orthodoxy is willing to step forward it would imply they're all in on the scam. I don't believe that. Wouldn't it be irresistible for an up-and-coming public figure in the sciences to take down the likes of Richard Lindzen? The recent debates (posted on this thread) establish that the "don't sanction them by sharing a platform" excuse is no longer operative.
  14. I heard a lecture recently by Willie Soon on the topic. I've had some free time lately. If I hunt it down, will that suffice? Or do I have to put it in my own words? That would take time, and alas, free time is about to become much more scarce for your friendly neighborhood Time Lord.
  15. I haven't gotten around to portraying that way yet. You must must be referring to MSK's post, you fraud-enabler you!
  16. Watch Michael Palin do it. Down there, you certainly don't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
  17. Yeah yeah, they used to say global cooling was going to cause the same problem with the polar vortices. Scott Adams wants to host a debate! Good breakdown of the issues:
  18. If the starting point is somewhere less than 1.5 miles north of the south pole it'll work. It's a matter of solving for the degrees of longitude that are one mile apart at the appropriate latitude.
  19. So there's going to be an unusually cold winter because of global warming. Thankfully, there's only 1 day to go (it was 10 days, 9 days ago when this was posted):
  20. The new Scott Adams challenge: I gather this is the video he's referring to: Or maybe it's this one (same guy, shorter video):
  21. Yeah I get it now. Turning west means following a degree of latitude.
  22. I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that since the lengths are equal, the three points must describe an equilateral triangle, so 60 degrees per side. If you walk south then turn west, isn't the angle of that turn 90 degrees? You won't end up at the same starting point. I can see how it works at the north pole, but since you're not actually touching the south pole, and if you were to touch the south pole there would be no way to travel west to satisfy step two (once there you can only go north)...am I missing something?
  23. I don't know if this has been posted on OL yet: Until now it's been beyond rare to see such people share a stage. On the downside, there's virtually no interaction between the opposing sides. This next one has more actual debate, but is marred by Lawrence Krauss's slimeball tactics and a lack of oratorical skill on the part of two of the members of the opposition. I wish they'd have ceded their time to Lindzen.
  24. Cheap point: if Clinton had won, there wouldn't have been an special Alabama Senate race for his group to "meddle" with. Sounds like this guy would love to use the words "no collusion". But he can't. On a totally different matter, I was just listening to NPR (it's good to know what tunes the devil is playing) and they did a year-end round up of "2018 climate change disasters". E.g. hurricanes. Some "scientist" has recently published a paper opposing the till-now standard IPCC line that the cause of extreme weather events can't/shouldn't be ascribed to climate change. One paper. So now they're running with it. Have they covered this Alabama scandal? Guess.