Sign in to follow this  
Neil Parille

New Interview of Rand biographer Shoshana Milgram

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Newberry said:

Yes. I was thinking about how anonymous posters are like “reliable sources” in fake news stories. There is no there there. 

Go ahead and keep thinking that.  If you were to make a project of piecing together the biographical info I’ve posted here over the years you could almost certainly identify me in real life.  It might take a PI to do the work.  Profession, rough age and coordinates, first name.  You’ll notice that a few posters (evidently) know me personally.  No one who’s active now, however (I think in each case the reason they stopped posting here was TDS).  I don’t use this site (or Rand-land generally) to promote myself.  There’s no upside for me, as I imagine there is for you (ever sold a painting to someone who discovered you online?).  Downsides?  There are too many to name.  Here’s a recent story that comes to mind:

http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/man-pleads-guilty-to-charges-in-deadly-s

Would I put that kind of thing past certain deranged people I’ve encountered online, even on this site?  

GrumpyCat-1615_TRANSPARENT-680x450.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Newberry said:

We'll see how it all pans out.

We've already seen. It didn't pan out for you. Heh. Something isn't going to come along and magically rescue your falsehoods from being falsehoods. Your intellectual slop isn't going to magically become scholarly brilliance, no matter how much you wish.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Newberry said:

Regardless it is good question: what are aesthetic concepts that support postmodern art?

It is indeed a good question, but one that you're not bright enough or intellectually honest enough to research and answer. You're not a serious student of art history or philosophy of aesthetics. You're a Randroid. Which means that you don't practice rationality or objectivity, but you obey and repeat Rand's errors. When challenged and presented with facts and overwhelming evidence of your falsehoods, your method is to switch to the mindset of a middle-schooler, not admit to your errors, and announce that you're just giving your own personal views as an artist. And then you go right back to posing as a scholar and advocating your falsehoods that we just destroyed.

"What are aesthetic concepts that support postmodern art?"

The answer is not the Kantian Sublime. Kant's Sublime is the concept that supports Rand's art. It is opposite of what you stupidly believe.

Here's an idea: Go try to sell your stupidity to people who don't know anything about the subject. Your pal Stephen Hicks went for it, completely uncritically, hook, line and sinker. There are more out there just like him. Maybe try the kids over at ObjectivismOnline. Most of them are ripe for the picking, You'll dazzle them! They'll guzzle your Kool Aid. They'll give you what you crave: Adoration! You'll be there guru, and they'll be your inner circle, just like the one that Rand had!

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Go ahead and keep thinking that.  If you were to make a project of piecing together the biographical info I’ve posted here over the years you could almost certainly identify me in real life.  It might take a PI to do the work.  Profession, rough age and coordinates, first name.  You’ll notice that a few posters (evidently) know me personally.  No one who’s active now, however (I think in each case the reason they stopped posting here was TDS).  I don’t use this site (or Rand-land generally) to promote myself.  There’s no upside for me, as I imagine there is for you (ever sold a painting to someone who discovered you online?).  Downsides?  There are too many to name.  Here’s a recent story that comes to mind:

http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/man-pleads-guilty-to-charges-in-deadly-s

Would I put that kind of thing past certain deranged people I’ve encountered online, even on this site?  

GrumpyCat-1615_TRANSPARENT-680x450.jpg

Yes, many times 

Were you the person that the false accusation happened to? Or something like that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

We've already seen. It didn't pan out for you. Heh. Something isn't going to come along and magically rescue your falsehoods from being falsehoods. Your intellectual slop isn't going to magically become scholarly brilliance, no matter how much you wish.

J

Falsehoods and truth in aesthetics are in the minds of the readers, either they resonate or they don’t. One of the reasons I have gotten talks and articles, such as about Kant, accepted was because I approached them from my artist perspective, rather than as a philosopher, scholar, or historian, which I am obviously not. Undoubtedly a falsehood but I get the sense you’re a disgruntled Rand fanboy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

It is indeed a good question, but one that you're not bright enough or intellectually honest enough to research and answer. You're not a serious student of art history or philosophy of aesthetics. You're a Randroid. Which means that you don't practice rationality or objectivity, but you obey and repeat Rand's errors. When challenged and presented with facts and overwhelming evidence of your falsehoods, your method is to switch to the mindset of a middle-schooler, not admit to your errors, and announce that you're just giving your own personal views as an artist. And then you go right back to posing as a scholar and advocating your falsehoods that we just destroyed.

"What are aesthetic concepts that support postmodern art?"

The answer is not the Kantian Sublime. Kant's Sublime is the concept that supports Rand's art. It is opposite of what you stupidly believe.

Here's an idea: Go try to sell your stupidity to people who don't know anything about the subject. Your pal Stephen Hicks went for it, completely uncritically, hook, line and sinker. There are more out there just like him. Maybe try the kids over at ObjectivismOnline. Most of them are ripe for the picking, You'll dazzle them! They'll guzzle your Kool Aid. They'll give you what you crave: Adoration! You'll be there guru, and they'll be your inner circle, just like the one that Rand had!

J

“...admit your errors!” Lol you write like you have a hammer. I’ll check out Objectivism online, it might be a good fit. Thanks for your compliment that Hicks hangs on my ever word, I am sure that would be news to him. Now he is a scholar, philosopher, and philosophical historian. He is also active in recorded debates, publishing in several languages, and teaching college philosophy courses. It’s kinda of cool he is gaining traction in social media as well. Plus he is a nice guy and a collector of Newberrys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Deep down, like me, you're shallow.

Brant,

Ya' got me...

Like Walt Whitman said, "I loaf and invite my soul."

My inner life is asymmetric. So I have moments denuded of subtext.

And like Freud is said to have said, "A cigar is sometimes just a cigar."

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Go ahead and keep thinking that.  If you were to make a project of piecing together the biographical info I’ve posted here over the years you could almost certainly identify me in real life.  It might take a PI to do the work.  Profession, rough age and coordinates, first name.  You’ll notice that a few posters (evidently) know me personally.  No one who’s active now, however (I think in each case the reason they stopped posting here was TDS).  I don’t use this site (or Rand-land generally) to promote myself.  There’s no upside for me, as I imagine there is for you (ever sold a painting to someone who discovered you online?).  Downsides?  There are too many to name.  Here’s a recent story that comes to mind:

http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/man-pleads-guilty-to-charges-in-deadly-s

Would I put that kind of thing past certain deranged people I’ve encountered online, even on this site?  

GrumpyCat-1615_TRANSPARENT-680x450.jpg

It's just a typical Newbsie tactic. If you point out his falsehoods, and he doesn't have the integrity to admit to them, he squirms, dodges and evades, and one of his common methods is to go after someone for posting anonymously or semi-anonymously. He pretends that it's relevant, as if you can't be trusted, and the quotes from Kant that you cite are automatically invalidated, and therefore he wins! You can even copy and paste from Newbsie's own quotations of Kant, and he'll act as if your anonymity has somehow magically tainted them.

It's totally childish.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newberry said:

One of the reasons I have gotten talks and articles, such as about Kant, accepted was because I approached them from my artist perspective...

Your talks and articles are not about Kant. They're about a fictional villain that you created and named "Kant" in order to try to vindicate your hero Rand. And, no, you don't approach the subject from an artist's perspective. There's nothing about being an artist which leads to needing to willfully misinterpret philosophy and history, to deny factual reality, and to lie. You approach the subject from the perspective of an acolyte and zealot, not an artist.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

...rather than as a philosopher, scholar, or historian, which I am obviously not.

Yes, obviously. Very obviously.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

Undoubtedly a falsehood but I get the sense you’re a disgruntled Rand fanboy. 

Well, that's another example of your "sense" not being reliable, just as it isn't when you "sense" Kant to be saying the exact opposite of what he was saying. You're rather dense and easily misled by your zealot "sense."

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newberry said:

“...admit your errors!” Lol you write like you have a hammer.

And you whine like a zealot who can't handle criticism.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

Thanks for your compliment that Hicks hangs on my ever word, I am sure that would be news to him.

I didn't say that he hangs on your every word. I nothing of the sort. Are you not capable of the truth? What I said was that Hicks stupidly trusted your opinions on Kant. In doing so, he revealed how little he knows on the subject of Kant's aesthetics, the history of the philosophy of aesthetics, and of art history.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

Now he is a scholar, philosopher, and philosophical historian.

Not in the realm of art and aesthetics. In that realm, he's a neophyte, and a blundering Rand zealot.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

He is also active in recorded debates...

He didn't do too well in discussing or debating with me at his blog. He couldn't handle the substance. He quickly resorted to ad hominem.

 

2 hours ago, Newberry said:

It’s kinda of cool he is gaining traction in social media as well.

Be careful what you wish for. Social traction means attention, and attention eventually attracts informed criticism. That's something that you and Hicks need to avoid.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

willfully misinterpret philosophy and history, to deny factual reality, and to lie.

 

You sound like you picked up the bad habit of an ARI nutter or like Perigo when they go on an ex-communication frenzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

And you whine like a zealot who can't handle criticism.

 

I didn't say that he hangs on your every word. I nothing of the sort. Are you not capable of the truth? What I said was that Hicks stupidly trusted your opinions on Kant. In doing so, he revealed how little he knows on the subject of Kant's aesthetics, the history of the philosophy of aesthetics, and of art history.

 

Not in the realm of art and aesthetics. In that realm, he's a neophyte, and a blundering Rand zealot.

 

He didn't do too well in discussing or debating with me at his blog. He couldn't handle the substance. He quickly resorted to ad hominem.

 

Be careful what you wish for. Social traction means attention, and attention eventually attracts informed criticism. That's something that you and Hicks need to avoid.

J

lol, you are trolling me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this