"Romanticist Art" Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics

[Jonathan]

"...doesn't mean the feelings are in the artwork". [J]

Would it mean rather, that emotions are 'evoked' by an artwork???

Yes.

Emotions can also be evoked by looking at a scene of rolling hills in reality, or desert dunes, or waterfalls, but that doesn't mean that such scenes have a "sense of life." Emotions can be evoked in us by a fawn or a spider, or by an overdue bill or a pizza crust, but that doesn't mean that those things have "senses of life."

I think Rand assumed it as such a given, she paid it little attention.

I also thought it was self-obvious, now it looks like the first stumbling block.

Well, welcome to the practice of philosophy! One doesn't start with strong feelings or assumptions about something, mindlessly assume that it is therefore a given, and then give it no further thought. The idea of practicing philosophy well is to make no assumptions and to think very deeply and critically.

The educated sophistication of art appraisal has (seemingly) diluted what is implicit to art...

So, you're saying that "educated sophistication" is a bad thing, and that following implicit hunches while paying them little attention is virtuous?

J

[Reidy]

I agree with Brant in #372 that Rand didn't believe deep down that we can't read each people's character from their artistic tastes. My reason for saying this is that her more classic and foundational writings on art show no hesitation about such judgements. Consider "Philosophy and Sense of Life". In the first paragraphs, talking about the truth contained in myths and allegories, she writes:

"One of such allegories, which men find particularly terrifying, is the myth of a supernatural recorder from whom nothing can be hidden, who lists all of a man's deeds - the good and the evil, the noble and the vile - and who confronts a man with that record on judgement day.

"That myth is true, not existentially but psychologically. The merciless recorder is the integrating mechanism of a man's subconscious; the record is his sense of life."

- or the final sentences of "Art and Sense of Life", which ran in The Objectivist a month later:

" When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work - and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it."

Note also that in her novels she shows an unquestioning confidence that she can read people's character by looking at them.

A biographical hunch on my part is that the breakup with Branden is what brought about her later, agnostic position. He strung her along for several years. If he could do this to even as sharp an observer as herself - the thinking may have gone - maybe we can't read each other so reliably after all.

[caroljane]

She also said famously that she could discern a man's philosophy by knowing who he slept with. No word on a woman's philosophy, but presumably the same applied. Hmmmm.

[Selene]

She also said famously that she could discern a man's philosophy by knowing who he slept with. No word on a woman's philosophy, but presumably the same applied. Hmmmm.

One of my favorite quotes, so I get a tad irritated when someone totally mis-informs folks what she actually said which was:

“Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life. Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves.”Ayn Rand

Assuming the above is the accurate quote, you will be editing your post.

A...

[Selene]

Here are the surrounding words to that pull quote:

“Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a person's sexual choice is the result and sum of their fundamental convictions. Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life. Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves. No matter what corruption they're taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which they cannot perform for any motive but their own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! - an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exultation, only on the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces them to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and accept their real ego as their standard of value. They will always be attracted to the person who reflects their deepest vision of themselves, the person whose surrender permits them to experience - or to fake - a sense of self-esteem .. Love is our response to our highest values - and can be nothing else.”

A...

[caroljane]

Sorry Adam,you are right to be irritated. I should have looked it up.

[Selene]

Now this is from the Ayn Rand Lexicon and supports your quote.

The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value . . .

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem . . . . Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else.

[Brant Gaede]

I think it would have been quite fun to see how she would have reacted to someone not being intimidated by her tactics. I would have enjoyed calling her bluffs and keeping cool while she overheated with emotion.

J

Devers Branden is the one I can think of. Not respecting any tactics or overheating but by presenting herself as a peer to her in their conversation.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

She also said famously that she could discern a man's philosophy by knowing who he slept with. No word on a woman's philosophy, but presumably the same applied. Hmmmm.

One of my favorite quotes, so I get a tad irritated when someone totally mis-informs folks what she actually said which was:

“Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life. Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves.” Ayn Rand

Assuming the above is the accurate quote, you will be editing your post.

A...

That's Frisco in AS.

--Brant

[Reidy]

The misquote in #380 and #384 (as vs. the accurate quote in #382) is bad grammar ("person" is singular, "themselves" plural) and graceless, anachronistic feminist newspeak that would have been a discredit to Rand if she'd written it.

(Branden, in "The Psychology of Pleasure" observes that the point applies equally to a woman.)

[Selene]

The misquote in #380 and #384 (as vs. the accurate quote in #382) is bad grammar ("person" is singular, "themselves" plural) and graceless, anachronistic feminist newspeak that would have been a discredit to Rand if she'd written it.

(Branden, in "The Psychology of Pleasure" observes that the point applies equally to a woman.)

Thanks Reidy, I always thought it applied equally and that Branden reference helped.

A...

[anthony]

"...doesn't mean the feelings are in the artwork". [J]

Would it mean rather, that emotions are 'evoked' by an artwork???

Yes.

Emotions can also be evoked by looking at a scene of rolling hills in reality, or desert dunes, or waterfalls, but that doesn't mean that such scenes have a "sense of life." Emotions can be evoked in us by a fawn or a spider, or by an overdue bill or a pizza crust, but that doesn't mean that those things have "senses of life."

J

We are going off track regarding sense of life; partly my doing in stressing emotions. Briefly, sense of life has importance because of subconsciousness: the subconscious premises of the author/artist and those of the reader/viewer. In that way the sense of life of the latter indirectly encounters the sense of life of the first - directly through the sense of life of the artwork.

"The source of art", AR considered s.o.l., which should be inarguable.

To recap, she defined it as "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence".

Therefore, the immediate emotion the viewer might sense of the 'treatment' and stylization of an artwork, prior to conscious assessment of its subject and content, could range from approval to disgust (including boredom) --according to the reader's own sense of life. Rand saw it as "experienced as a sense, or a feel" -- I'd go so far as to call it a visceral response.

No, things in nature wouldn't possess sense of life, it takes a human agent as creator.

[Jonathan]

I agree with Brant in #372 that Rand didn't believe deep down that we can't read each people's character from their artistic tastes. My reason for saying this is that her more classic and foundational writings on art show no hesitation about such judgements. Consider "Philosophy and Sense of Life". In the first paragraphs, talking about the truth contained in myths and allegories, she writes:

"One of such allegories, which men find particularly terrifying, is the myth of a supernatural recorder from whom nothing can be hidden, who lists all of a man's deeds - the good and the evil, the noble and the vile - and who confronts a man with that record on judgement day.

"That myth is true, not existentially but psychologically. The merciless recorder is the integrating mechanism of a man's subconscious; the record is his sense of life."

- or the final sentences of "Art and Sense of Life", which ran in The Objectivist a month later:

" When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work - and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it."

Note also that in her novels she shows an unquestioning confidence that she can read people's character by looking at them.

As I wrote in post #365, "Rand reserved for herself alone the ability to know others' senses of life, and to know them unerringly. Lowly little followers like you were the people she was looking down upon when scolding them in the above quotes."

But, anyway, how would Rand prove that she could "read" others' senses of life and "naked souls" by their responses to art? Where is her proof? Objectivists can't even identify subjects or meanings in realist paintings, so how would they possibly identify artists' or viewers' senses of life?

J

[Jonathan]

We are going off track regarding sense of life; partly my doing in stressing emotions. Briefly, sense of life has importance because of subconsciousness: the subconscious premises of the author/artist and those of the reader/viewer. In that way the sense of life of the latter indirectly encounters the sense of life of the first - directly through the sense of life of the artwork.

How would we confirm those assertions? By what objective means?

Rand's notion of "sense of life" is a hunch. It may or may not apply to all people. It may or may not apply to all works of art. In order to find out, someone would have to prove Rand's hunch.

"The source of art", AR considered s.o.l., which should be inarguable.

To recap, she defined it as "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence".

Did she offer any objective proof of the concept? Did she offer anything beyond personal introspection and subjective opinion? Did she offer any objective, scientific research to back up her claims?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

"The source of art", AR considered s.o.l., which should be inarguable.

To recap, she defined it as "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence".

Rand's statement that "sense of life" is the source of art most certainly should NOT be inarguable. To begin with, you'd have to demonstrate that there even is such a phenomenon as she described.

Note that she says that "sense of life" is the record of the "merciless recorder" which is the "integrating mechanism of a man's subconscious." This "integrating mechanism," she further says ("Philosophy and Sense of Life") "sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him. What began as a series of single, discreet conclusions (or evasions) about his own particular problems, becomes a generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant! basic emotion - an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences. This is a sense of life."

Oh, really? How convenient from the standpoint of Rand's attempt to use art as a moral Rorschach if there were such an amazing "subconscious" mechanism as she asserts there is, but what possible evidence could be found to support her claim? She went farther off into fanciful mechanism ascription than anything Freud managed to ascribe to the "unconscious" (an idea which Rand and Branden ridiculed).

Moreover, she then - in the same essay - changes her claim - and says, "It is only those values which he regards or grows to regard as 'important,' those which represent his implicit view of reality, that remain in a man's subconscious and form his sense of life. [....] The integrated sum of a man's basic values is his sense of life."

So which is it? The merciless recorder subconscious integrator of "his psychological activities" (degree of mental activity/passivity) or "the integrated sum" of "those values which he regards or grows to regard as 'important'"?

And in either case, exactly how is the integrating or summing supposedly done by the amazing subconscious mechanism? Er, um...somehow.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Rand wanted a certain people world around her that was highly contrived and artificial and if she couldn't find such people she made them. The problem is such notions as a "sense of life" which is actually demanding a sense of conformity and young and inexperienced people trying to go along with this sort of thing so they wouldn't be on the outside looking in--or, keeping up appearances until they too were something of a Randian hero. The irrationality of the whole thing meant she ended up mostly alone at the end of her life. I'm glad she went to New Orleans, though, where the economically oriented libertarians gave her a swell and deserved welcome.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan quoted from Rand's Q&As at Peikoff's 1976 course "The Philosophy of Objectivism":

"[ I]t is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot ~judge~ the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing."

"Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine that I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books and mine is on every page. You would have some grasp of it but I hate to think of how little. I hate the painful embarrassment I feel when somebody sends me music the ~know~ I'd love and my reaction is the opposite: It's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good. Nobody but my husband can give me works of art and know infallibly, as he does, that I'll like them. So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private." (Philosophy of Objectivism, Lecture 12, 1976)

There was much more to the first answer. The second was in response to a different question and included material about people sending Rand books.

Here is the l-o-n-g, full first answer as transcribed by Robert Campbell on the "Re-Write Squad" thread:

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 12 Q&A CD 2, track 3, 0:44 through 9:13

A'ight. Ehh, now, uh, here's the first question.

How would one define his own sense of life? What kind of words would one use: "happy," "sad," "sensitive"? And should one be able to define it? In how much detail? Could you give a sample description of someone's sense of lifefor example, the character of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind? Is it necessary for a novelist to know the sense of life of the characters he writes? How would he use this in working out the characters?

Now, there is a fundamental mistake in this question. It treats the issue of sense of life as if it were a conscious, rational, philosophical conviction. A sense of life is not intellectual, it's not a conviction. It's an emotional sum, a sum of conclusions made subconsciously and emotionally. In, uh, every discussion of sense of life, I have always stressed that it is an emotional sum, which is why men cannot be guided by sense of life alone, why they are helpless, uhh, without a conscious philosophy. Now, to take the specific questions here.

The first paragraph: how would one define his own sense of life? What kind of words would one use: "happy," "sad," "sensitive"? And should one be able to define it? In how much detail?... Ehh, to begin with: how would one define his own sense of life? By introspection. That is the only means of doing it.

And one doesn't start by defining one's sense of life. One better start by defining the causes of, uh, nature of, one's emotions. One has to first learn how to identify the exact nature of what you feel and why you feel it in any given instance and any particular example that you might care to choose. First, learn to be at home and well acquaintedI would almost say, be on intimate termswith your emotions. Learn how to know within a very short period of time, in conscious words (underscored, in conscious wordsnot approximately) what you felt and why you felt it.

After you have become acquainted with yourself emotionally, when you no longer have any great mysteries to yourself, then you can start to identify your sense of life. And the best, and perhaps only, way to identify it is by observing your own reactions to art. There are two realms in life where sense of life is predominant in them: sex and art. Uh, in sex, it wouldn't be as clear to you, and it's harder to identify your own sexual reactions. But, euh, if you want the best avenueit's not a shortcut, it's pretty difficultto your own subconscious, observe what you feel in regard to art and why you feel it. Select particular literature, painting, and perhaps sculpture, because those are easiest to identify conceptually. Music is very important, but it's terribly hard to translate into firm concepts, and it has no basic vocabulary. Therefore, observe yourself as honestly as you can, because you are the only judge, jury, prosecutor, and defender, in your aesthetic reactions.

When you really feel an emotion about something in realm of art, ask yourself: What is it that you like about it, and why do you like it? That might give you some idea of, of your basic metaphysical convictions, because what a sense of life presents emotionally is your metaphysics, but in the form of emotions, not conscious convictions.

Now, how would, what words could one use: "happy," "sad," "sensitive"? No. That is superficial. When, ehh, people use the expression "tragic sense of life," that's just a foreshortening. There may be any number of perfectly different or even opposite senses of life, euh, i.e., metaphysics, which all could be called "tragic." It isn't important to characterize your sense of life.

What's important is to translate it into conscious convictions and ask yourself: Are my conscious, my subconscious ideas right or wrong? Do I consciously believe them? Or have I made a mistake in my childhood? And then you translate your sense of life into convictions, and you hold them, you hold your feeling in the form of articulate convictions. You will notice, if you want to know what's the sign of succeeding, you will notice that there is no clash between your conscious convictions and your subconscious, sense of life emotions. When you've reached that stage, you know you have identified all the essentials of your sense of life.

Eah, and now, in how much detail? Sense of life doesn't deal with details, just as emotions don't. It deals with fundamentals. Which fundamentals? Philosophical ones. What you learn in philosophy is what forms categories and classifications in your subconscious and forms your sense of life. Therefore, if you decide that you know what you emotionally, in, uh, sense of life terms, feel about the nature of the world, the nature of your means of cognition, man's nature, and his moralitywhat he should do with his life, in the broadest termsif you know that, that's sufficient to know your own sense of life.

Now, in the light of what I have said, it is, of course, totally impossible to name the sense of life of fiction characters. You might name the sense of life of you, your closest friends, and then I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, your wife or husband. Nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person. That would be psychologizing. Judge them on their philosophical convictions; never mind what they feel as they express their ideas or whether what they is feel something else. That's not for you to judge, it's of no relevance. Euhh, judge people by their stated convictions. In the world of art, you can say, "I like this man's sense of life," even though his conscious convictions are, uh, somewhat different or opposite. But then his psychology is not what you are concerned with. You're concerned with the ideas as they are expressed in his work.

It would be impossible to say the, tell the sense of life of a character in fiction. What you have to be able to tell is his convictions, his basic views on life. And I think Scarlett O'Hara had a pretty cheap, social metaphysical view of life, that's all. She was not a good character at all. In fact, none of them were in Gone with the Wind. It's a very fascinating novel. I like it very much. I think it's an excellent example of Romantic fiction but the characters in it are atrocious. Uhh, now, is it necessary for a novelist to know the sense of life of the characters he writes? No. It's not necessary. It's impossible. How would he use this in working out the characters? He uses their conscious convictions.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 185-187)

Mayhew inserted a reference explaining social metaphysicsit quotes from an article by Ayn Rand. A good Peikovian mustn't, under any circumstances, cite Nathaniel Branden's articles on the subject

The final paragraph in Mayhew's rendition did not come from this answer.

Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books, and my sense of life is on every page. You would have some grasp of it - but I hate to think how little. I hate the painful embarrassment I feel when somebody sends me music they know I'd love, and my reaction is the opposite: It's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good. Nobody but my husband can give me works of art and know infallibly, as he does, that I'll like them. So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private.

He took it from another answer later during this Q&A and grafted it on. See below.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"...doesn't mean the feelings are in the artwork". [J]

Would it mean rather, that emotions are 'evoked' by an artwork???

Why is this such a difficult idea to get across? Long before anything to do with Rand, I was aware of my 'involvement' and engagement in pictures and fiction. As are lots of others.

Quite well explained, thusly: "An indication of the metaphysical slant of art can be seen in the popular notion that a reader of fiction "identifies himself with" some character or characters of the story. "To identify with" is a colloquial designation for a process of abstraction: it means to observe a common element between the character and oneself..." "Subconsciously, without any knowledge of esthetic theory, but by virtue of the implicit nature of art, this IS the way in which most people react to fiction and all other forms of art". [p.37 TRM]

I think Rand assumed it as such a given, she paid it little attention.I also thought it was self-obvious, now it looks like the first stumbling block.

The educated sophistication of art appraisal has (seemingly) diluted what is implicit to art: its importance to each individual -personally-, via his emotion and mind. (Separating them, momentarily).

Tony,

NO ONE is denying that art is emotionally important to people.

How you get that meaning from what anyone is saying, I have no idea.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Sense of life: needs work.

--Brant

[anthony]

"The source of art", AR considered s.o.l., which should be inarguable.

To recap, she defined it as "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence".

Rand's statement that "sense of life" is the source of art most certainly should NOT be inarguable. To begin with, you'd have to demonstrate that there even is such a phenomenon as she described.

Note that she says that "sense of life" is the record of the "merciless recorder" which is the "integrating mechanism of a man's subconscious." This "integrating mechanism," she further says ("Philosophy and Sense of Life") "sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him. What began as a series of single, discreet conclusions (or evasions) about his own particular problems, becomes a generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant! basic emotion - an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences. This is a sense of life."

Oh, really? How convenient from the standpoint of Rand's attempt to use art as a moral Rorschach if there were such an amazing "subconscious" mechanism as she asserts there is, but what possible evidence could be found to support her claim? She went farther off into fanciful mechanism ascription than anything Freud managed to ascribe to the "unconscious" (an idea which Rand and Branden ridiculed).

Moreover, she then - in the same essay - changes her claim - and says, "It is only those values which he regards or grows to regard as 'important,' those which represent his implicit view of reality, that remain in a man's subconscious and form his sense of life. [....] The integrated sum of a man's basic values is his sense of life."

So which is it? The merciless recorder subconscious integrator of "his psychological activities" (degree of mental activity/passivity) or "the integrated sum" of "those values which he regards or grows to regard as 'important'"?

And in either case, exactly how is the integrating or summing supposedly done by the amazing subconscious mechanism? Er, um...somehow.

Ellen

Ellen, There's over much deduction in the manner everybody is treating sense of life. I think it should be considered inductively, introspectively - and simply "pointed at". I think of the incredible amount of sensory experiences I or anyone has 'had', nearly all of which unremarked upon at that moment, but, certainly, subconsciously adjudged good or bad i.e. "important" - and filed away in our data banks. Gone but not forgotten.

Think of being on the shore of a large lake alone when young. There's a pleasant breeze blowing on your face, and you're feeling great with the world. But then, suddenly it seems, the breeze turns icy, accompanied by a darkening on the horizon. It is possible that one would feel a sense of foreboding -even fear, and quickly gather his things and leave. Or another may just calmly observe that the weather is simply going to change without sensing threatened. I think these reactions stay with us for life, popping up at unpredictable instants. When viewing art for example. Then consider what the total and averaged-out sum of them amounts to.

Another approach is to observe the writings of various people you've become familiar with. The four of us here on this thread, say. I'll bet you have arrived at 'a sense of sense of life' of we other three - as I've done. Not by WHAT anyone says, but -inductively- HOW one writes it. Why this word, this phrasing, not that... and so on. NOT by content and the explicit 'metaphysical values' stated, but underlying premises in the style of writing. I can identify a short passage by regulars here without seeing their names, 9/10 times. What I have surmised from dozens of posts you have written is that you could also be very capable of this.

[Jules Troy]

Are you SURE the thinker is "thinking"?

I mean he could be just taking a really good crap! ?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, There's over much deduction in the manner everybody is treating sense of life. I think it should be considered inductively, introspectively - and simply "pointed at".

Tony,

There's always "over much" something or other - literalism, purism, empiricism, something - whenever anyone diverges from your particular view of what's to be taken as correct in Rand's views, which you claim to support, sort of, sometimes, but always to discern the essence of, somehow, while you make it up as you go along. Note that you presume that there is an "it" ("sense of life"), only the "it" is now what you say "it" is. I think that you should develop your own theory.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

This is a response to a post which was on a different thread ("Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism"). The subject of "sense of life" came up tangentially there, and I don't want to divert that thread further.

btw - The more I study the concept of sense of life, the more I have a huge difficulty with it.

I knew more about sense of life when I didn't understand as much as I do now.

Michael

Heh. I agree. I still like the concept despite its being really just a hunch of Rand's, and its having no objective, scientific support. It's something with which I can identify with in many ways, but also at the same time recognize that it's all guessy/intuitive, somewhat self-contradictory, and sort of zombie/deterministic. It's a messy concept, and anything but objective, but I'm glad that Rand didn't recognize its problems and therefore abort it.

J

Jonathan,

Why do you use the term "concept" as the classification of "sense of life"? Granted, you say it's "really just a hunch of Rand's" and you describe it as "a messy concept." But why do you describe it as a "concept" at all? Rand's presentation isn't that of a "concept," by her own meaning.

Also, again, where do you see anything "deterministic" in Rand's notion of "sense of life"? Although she gave varying descriptions of how "sense of life" is formed, in each description the particulars she cites as resulting in a person's "sense of life" are those of the person's mental activity or passivity, effort or non-effort - i.e., results of the exercise of volition.

Ellen

[anthony]

Ellen, There's over much deduction in the manner everybody is treating sense of life. I think it should be considered inductively, introspectively - and simply "pointed at".

Tony,

There's always "over much" something or other - literalism, purism, empiricism, something - whenever anyone diverges from your particular view of what's to be taken as correct in Rand's views, which you claim to support, sort of, sometimes, but always to discern the essence of, somehow, while you make it up as you go along. Note that you presume that there is an "it" ("sense of life"), only the "it" is now what you say "it" is. I think that you should develop your own theory.

Ellen

Well, if you like, you may demonstrate where I significantly parted from Rand in my last post. Sense of life must be a matter for self-awareness, as well as observable differences in other people's articulate expressions. Like consciousness, consciousness of self can't be proven - or 'taught'. Also, that I go about the subject my own way may alarm theorists, but an arm's length -solely theoretical- approach to philosophy, especially the only practically applicable one, Objectivism, isn't for me. It also opposes all of O'ism's purposes. And, I'll assert, there is nothing to beat employing the philosophy in real life experience, for absorbing and learning it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, if you like, you may demonstrate where I significantly parted from Rand in my last post.

To what avail? If you can't discern the divergences yourself, you'd just dismiss anything I said as the usual too-this or too-that, and probably add one of your homilies on the superiority of your powers of discernment.

Ellen