HERESY!!!

[Dragonfly]

Shit happens when you are angry and under extreme urgency. That is not the same thing as a right to kill.

Angry and extreme urgency? First Dagny has a discussion of more than a page with the guard, and then

"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."

So much for "angry" and "extreme urgency". The guard let the key drop, he wouldn't shoot Dagny, so it would have been very easy to render him harmless, making the way free to rescue Galt, even faster than with all that talking. But of course that wasn't Rand's intention, this was a demonstration that it is perfectly ok to kill someone who cannot make up his mind. She is shouting this message through a megaphone. But Objectivists are deaf to the message and try to suggest that it is the description of a fast shootout in which people will be killed, like a scene from an average thriller. It is no such thing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Come on. Don't you get anything about the Objectivist mindset? The situation in which you distance yourself the most between your acts and your immediate emotions is when you have to be competent. Then you push the emotion aside (and even repress it) so your reason will direct your acts unhampered.

Rand has written about this and illustrated it over and over during moments of important decisions of her main characters. The more deeply felt the emotion, the calmer and in contrel the person becomes at the time to act. Rand's heroes do not give war-whoops and charge forth. They remain calm and deadly accurate. Yet here in this situation you want this to mean something else.

Do you imagine that Dagny would have shot a person in her living room during a social visit because the person refused to make a decision about what food to eat? Gimme a break!

Dagny was under enormous pressure. Or in your interpretation, does the pressure of that situation simply cease to exist because you have a pet theory?

You claim this is the case with Objectivists. I see the same kind of reasoning in your method of analysis.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

How's this for a possibility?: She gave her lead heroic characters certain eye colors because she liked those eye colors.

Again it seems that I'm the only one who takes Rand seriously. I don't think she used such descriptions just while she "liked them", in particular while she was quite emphatic in those descriptions. You see the same thing with the shooting of the guard scene. Objectivists claim that she just shoots him to save Galt, while it's obvious to an objective reader that this is merely a prop to present her philosophical view that a person who cannot make a choice has forfeited his right to life. Objectivists treat AS like modern christians the bible. They pick the parts they like and put importance on the philosophical implications while the less palatable parts are neutralized as literary devices or explained away as literal descriptions without any philosophical significance, while I think that she meant it when she wrote "and I mean it".

Dragonfly, once more you are coming back in a reply to me by going into a tangent about some other issue besides that of eye color and by speaking in your tangent of what "Objectivists" do. I am the one with whom you're discussing the eye-color issue. Your digression about the shooting of the guard is just that, a digression. Furthermore, it isn't true that all Objectivists claim about the scene what you say "Objectivists claim." We had a thread about exactly the guard scene, recall. All the Objectivists in that thread did not say the same thing. And I was mostly in agreement with your viewpoint on the scene, although differing in details. I think that I expressed what Rand's point was better than you did. I refer you to the thread if you've forgotten what I wrote there.

Now, as to her being "quite emphatic in those descriptions": To which descriptions do you refer? And what do you mean by "emphatic"? She states the colors of the main heroic characters' eyes. She says nothing about such eye color being a requisite characteristic of being heroic.

In regard to the villains whose eye color she describes, she gives more than just eye color as negative in their appearance. Mouch's eyes, as I've already said two or three times, are those of a debauched lifestyle; it isn't simply the color of the irises which makes them unappetizing. Lillian's eyes she describes as being a "flaw" -- in Lillian's beauty.

You quoted part of the description yourself:

[Lillian Rearden]

Her face was not beautiful. The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression.

But then in a subsequent comment, you left out that it's Lillian's beauty which is what Rand said was being flawed.

The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression. She means it: vagely pale eyes, neither quite gray nor brown are a flaw.

Interestingly, in the description of James Taggart there's a detail which provides evidence pertaining to a different issue, that of the discrepancy between some of Rand's comments penned earlier than the one about "no innate 'talents'" with that comment:

James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.

In regard specifically to the eyes, however, it again isn't just their being "pale" which is described but their being "veiled." The "veiled" part is characterologic.

She gives villains eye colors presented as unattractive and heroes eye colors which sound attractive, this is there in the text.

But what you're reading in as a belief is not there in the text. Having read it in, however, you then proceed to explain away anything which doesn't agree with your interpretation.

Thus my saying that I see the "Oedipus Complex" effect at work: The Oedipus Complex is a famous example of a non-falsifiable idea. It was posited as being universal to the male. It was then assumed to be present in all cases, no matter what the contravening evidence: If a male client showed signs of having hated his mother, he had a reverse Oedipus Complex. If he showed no signs of strong affect one way or the other about his mother, he had a repressed Oedipus Complex.

You proceed by making more and more obvious that you're engaging in just such impregnable-to-evidence reasoning.

In regard to my pointing out that she herself had monochromatic brown, not light-colored eyes; thus if light-colored monochromatic eyes were necessary to herodom, she'd be contradicting herself in viewing herself as a being such as her heroes, you go to the length of speculating:

[...] that there was an element of self-hatred in her which she tried to repress by her exaggerated claims about herself and that this also contributed to her long bouts of depression.

Also, in answer to my query as to whether (light-colored) monochromatic eyes are necessary but not sufficient for herodom, according to your theory of Rand's belief on the issue, you proceed by simply assuming the correctness of your hypothesis:

All the heroes of which she described the eyes had monochromatic irises, so we may make the inference that this is a necessary condition for herodom.

Sorry, but, no, we may not make this inference -- not legitimately anyway. You need some statement as to the necessity which you're espying before you have a basis for presuming that Rand thought what you say she did.

You then continue reasoning on the basis of your presumption:

However, to claim that it is a sufficient condition we must also have data about the non-heroes. We have only data about the villains, but not about the large category of neither heroes nor villains. Without any such data we cannot make any inference [as to whether the "right" eye color is a sufficient condition], and we'll have to accept the null hypothesis that eye color doesn't make you automatically a hero.

And yet I fancy you'd scream at Freud's comparable method of reasoning.

Ellen

___

Edited June 18, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, once more you are coming back in a reply to me by going into a tangent about some other issue besides that of eye color and by speaking in your tangent of what "Objectivists" do. I am the one with whom you're discussing the eye-color issue. Your digression about the shooting of the guard is just that, a digression.

Heh, as if this whole thread isn't a digression.

Furthermore, it isn't true that all Objectivists claim about the scene what you say "Objectivists claim." We had a thread about exactly the guard scene, recall. All the Objectivists in that thread did not say the same thing. And I was mostly in agreement with your viewpoint on the scene, although differing in details. I think that I expressed what Rand's point was better than you did. I refer you to the thread if you've forgotten what I wrote there.

I can't remember anyone who calls himself an Objectivist (either on this forum or elsewhere) who didn't claim that Dagny only shot the guard to rescue Galt. Perhaps there were some dissenting opinions, but they must have been a very small minority. I don't see that designating such a general opinion by Objectivists implies that every single Objectivist does share that opinion. I think the difference between your version and mine is merely a semantic quibble, related to the distinction between proximate cause and ultimate cause. In my opinion the best argument in that thread was given by Jonathan, he did express it much better than I could do.

Now, as to her being "quite emphatic in those descriptions": To which descriptions do you refer? And what do you mean by "emphatic"? She states the colors of the main heroic characters' eyes. She says nothing about such eye color being a requisite characteristic of being heroic.

No, but she does use a lot of loaded terms, for the villains as well for the heroes (in the latter case: cool, ice, glint of metal, pure, clear, color of the sky), implying that it reflects the character of her heroes.

In regard to the villains whose eye color she describes, she gives more than just eye color as negative in their appearance. Mouch's eyes, as I've already said two or three times, are those of a debauched lifestyle; it isn't simply the color of the irises which makes them unappetizing.

But it is the color of his irises that she describes as unappetizing. And where do you get the notion that these are the result of a debauched lifestyle? I can't remember any description of Mouch's lilfestyle. Or are you concluding that he must have had a debauched lifestyle from the appearance of his irises? Now that would be begging the question.

Lillian's eyes she describes as being a "flaw" -- in Lillian's beauty.

Yes, of course, that's exactly my point. A villain cannot be beautiful, at most partly beautiful, but there must be a physical flaw.

In regard specifically to the eyes, however, it again isn't just their being "pale" which is described but their being "veiled." The "veiled" part is characterologic.

I don't know what "veiled eyes" mean, neither what it means that this is something "characterologic".

She gives villains eye colors presented as unattractive and heroes eye colors which sound attractive, this is there in the text.

But what you're reading in as a belief is not there in the text. Having read it in, however, you then proceed to explain away anything which doesn't agree with your interpretation.

I don't explain away anything, I just take her at her word. That has nothing to do with Oedipus complexes.

Also, in answer to my query as to whether (light-colored) monochromatic eyes are necessary but not sufficient for herodom, according to your theory of Rand's belief on the issue, you proceed by simply assuming the correctness of your hypothesis:

All the heroes of which she described the eyes had monochromatic irises, so we may make the inference that this is a necessary condition for herodom.

Sorry, but, no, we may not make this inference -- not legitimately anyway. You need some statement as to the necessity which you're espying before you have a basis for presuming that Rand thought what you say she did.

Yes, we may make this inference, as we're not talking about the real world, but about the world of Rand's ideas as presented in AS. We can be sure that the descriptions are not accidental and therefore the inference is legitimate. If she didn't mean it, she shouldn't have written it. BTW, the "light-colored" is your addition, not mine.

And yet I fancy you'd scream at Freud's comparable method of reasoning.

I don't see any resemblance with Freud's method of reasoning.

[Ellen Stuttle]

All the heroes of which she described the eyes had monochromatic irises, so we may make the inference that this is a necessary condition for herodom.

Sorry, but, no, we may not make this inference -- not legitimately anyway. You need some statement as to the necessity which you're espying before you have a basis for presuming that Rand thought what you say she did.

Yes, we may make this inference, as we're not talking about the real world, but about the world of Rand's ideas as presented in AS. We can be sure that the descriptions are not accidental and therefore the inference is legitimate. If she didn't mean it, she shouldn't have written it. BTW, the "light-colored" is your addition, not mine.

To the contrary in regard to what we're talking about, what I am talking about is:

your attributing to Rand as a factual belief about the real world the belief that eye color is diagnostic of character;

followed by your claim that she didn't state this belief because she "realized" "she couldn't get away with" doing so;

followed by your claim that she was rationalizing -- making exceptions to her belief -- in regard to close associates (most of her close associates) whose eye colors weren't those of the heroes in Atlas;

followed by your claim that she didn't specify monochromatic brown -- her own eye color -- as the eye color of any of the heroes in Atlas due to a repressed self-hatred.

I added the "light-colored" to try to make clear that your reference was to gray, green, blue monochromatic eyes, as distinguished from monochromatic brown eyes. Possibly there's a misunderstanding on my part of the sense in which you were using "monochromatic" -- I was thinking in terms of the meaning "single color."

Your series of progressive additions to your claims and speculations about what was in Rand's mind reminds me very much of Freud's reasoning (not only in regard to the "Oedipus Complex," btw; he used similar reasoning on some other issues; I selected the "Oedipus Complex" as the referrent because it's a particularly famous example).

I don't know what "veiled eyes" mean, neither what it means that this is something "characterologic".

"Veiled eyes" is similar to "secretive eyes." It's a reference to expression. Expression, unlike eye color, is revelatory of psychological processes. Characteristic expression is revelatory of characteristic processes, thus "characterologic." You did appear to have some degree of understanding of the relationship between expression and process when you described Rand as "shifty"-eyed in her appearance on the Mike Wallace show.

Re Lillian, I understood you to be saying that the color indicated a flaw in Lillian's character. (The "lifelessly empty of expression" is characterologic. Personally, I find that not good wording, since it sounds to me like someone who's been beaten down by life and has become resigned; something like "coldly distant" I think would have been better.)

I have the strong impression in regard to Mouch that he was someone who spent a great deal of time wheeling and deeling while boozing with those with whom he was making deals, or from whom he was currying favor, etc., etc. -- Washington-man manipulator sort of stuff. I don't want to take the time to look up the details.

In regard to the clarity of her heroes' eyes, as distinguished from just the color, I think that is characterologic with the implication of "clean living" and "clear-sighted" -- fearless, open eyes.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

I'm just glad my own eyes are Randian heroic, even if my hair isn't.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I wonder which character traits anisocoria and/or heterochromia might represent if used in a Randian novel.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't remember anyone who calls himself an Objectivist (either on this forum or elsewhere) who didn't claim that Dagny only shot the guard to rescue Galt.

Dragonfly,

I am having a hard time understanding why you think Dagny would have shot the guard if he had not been in between her and Galt.

I admit, by then she was fed up and ready to rock and roll if necessary. But would you please explain to me where you get the idea Dagny would shoot anyone outside of a drastic life-and-death situation like that? I simply don't see it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I can't remember anyone who calls himself an Objectivist (either on this forum or elsewhere) who didn't claim that Dagny only shot the guard to rescue Galt.

Dragonfly,

I am having a hard time understanding why you think Dagny would have shot the guard if he had not been in between her and Galt.

I admit, by then she was fed up and ready to rock and roll if necessary. But would you please explain to me where you get the idea Dagny would shoot anyone outside of a drastic life-and-death situation like that? I simply don't see it.

DF seems to be mixing up the author's motives with the character's.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

I added the "light-colored" to try to make clear that your reference was to gray, green, blue monochromatic eyes, as distinguished from monochromatic brown eyes. Possibly there's a misunderstanding on my part of the sense in which you were using "monochromatic" -- I was thinking in terms of the meaning "single color."

Yes, single color is a necessary condition, but not light-colored, as Galt has deep dark green eyes.

Your series of progressive additions to your claims and speculations about what was in Rand's mind reminds me very much of Freud's reasoning (not only in regard to the "Oedipus Complex," btw; he used similar reasoning on some other issues; I selected the "Oedipus Complex" as the referrent because it's a particularly famous example).

There is no speculation about what she writes, I take her at her word. The only speculation is about her self-image, and I clearly stated that this was speculation.

"Veiled eyes" is similar to "secretive eyes." It's a reference to expression. Expression, unlike eye color, is revelatory of psychological processes. Characteristic expression is revelatory of characteristic processes, thus "characterologic."

Then it's psychobabble and not an objective criterion.

You did appear to have some degree of understanding of the relationship between expression and process when you described Rand as "shifty"-eyed in her appearance on the Mike Wallace show.

No, because that is an objective characterization: the eyes are continuously darting sideways, you could even measure it. Further I didn't draw any conclusion from that about her character, only that she didn't come over as a mesmerizing personality on that show, because a person who's continuously looking away (and moreover has a rather wooden delivery) isn't very mesmerizing .

I have the strong impression in regard to Mouch that he was someone who spent a great deal of time wheeling and deeling while boozing with those with whom he was making deals, or from whom he was currying favor, etc., etc. -- Washington-man manipulator sort of stuff. I don't want to take the time to look up the details.

Ah, I see... he is a Washington manipulator, so he must spend a great deal of time wheeling and deeling while boozing and that gives him unhealthy looking eyes. Talking about drawing valid inferences... To borrow another Freudian term: this looks to me more like an example of free-association...

At least I did take the time to look up the details.

In regard to the clarity of her heroes' eyes, as distinguished from just the color, I think that is characterologic with the implication of "clean living" and "clear-sighted" -- fearless, open eyes.

Then she shouldn't stress so much the color of the eyes in almost every case, as that implies a link between color and character.

[Ellen Stuttle]

There is no speculation about what she writes, I take her at her word. The only speculation is about her self-image, and I clearly stated that this was speculation.

Except that she nowhere stated what you have asserted was in her mind, so, no, you are not taking her "at her word," you're reading into her word what she didn't say. True, your only speculation was about her self-image. Each of your other progressive claims was an assertion:

(1) She believed that certain eye colors are required to be Randian heroes;

(2) She didn't dare say she believed this, since she knew she couldn't get away with it;

(3) In the case of her real-world associates who didn't have the requisite eye colors, she rationalized.

Right, you didn't speculate about any of this.

As to your put-down designation "psychobabble," there is no "objective" way (if I understand your meaning of "objective") to assess or to describe internal processes; assessing other humans' internal processes in real life isn't objective, in the sense I think you mean; nor is conveying in literature the psychology of one's characters. Qualitative cues which we have to subjectively interpret are how we assess others in interaction with others, and how we convey in literature the characteristics of persons we're writing about. What your complaint about AR's methods of characterization comes down to is that you don't like them, since you find them stereotyping. I even agree with you -- as I said several times in the thread -- that she did use stereotyping methods. But your further claims as to her factual beliefs are, precisely, your inferences and not demonstrable from her text.

The "defense" rests.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Despite trying very carefully to walk on the eggshells over at OO, I'm back in the moderation doghouse. I had been posting on this thread about the Objectivist view that Kant was the "father of modern art."

A while after posting the message below, I returned to OO to see if there was a response to my comments, and I discovered that I had a personal message from one of the moderators waiting for me which informed me that my post had been deleted. His message advised me to ask for clarification if I needed it, so I did.

I wrote to him:

Hi,

Will you please clarify why my post (copied below) was removed from the Evidence for Theory of Art History thread?

I can see how someone might take the "8 cents" comment at the end as an insult, but it wasn't intended as such. I was honestly trying to come up with a monetary value that would represent how much I'd be willing to pay Kendall to write a couple of sentences summarizing one small aspect of an OCON course that he thought was "superb." Kendall asked what I would offer him in exchange for his services. I politely gave him an honest answer.

But, if the "8 cents" comment was deemed to be a violation of this forum's rules, I'll gladly remove it and repost my comments without it.

Thanks,

J

The moderator quickly responded without providing any of the promised clarification -- his post simply asserted that surely I didn't need clarification -- so I reposted my original message with the "8 cents" comment removed, and was almost immediately informed via private message from the moderator that my newly reposted-but-edited message had also been deleted.

I've asked again for clarification, but have received no response as of yet, and it appears that I can no longer post there.

It's not a big deal, the good people at OO can do whatever they want with their forum, but I don't want to leave the impression that posts have gone unanswered by me, and I wanted to maintain a publicly accessible record of what was said and what happened (if MSK and Kat don't mind) -- anyone following along at OO would not know why I suddenly disappeared from the conversation.

So, here's the original post of mine that was deleted:

There is no Objectivist theory of music.

Really? I know that Rand admitted that parts of her theory were speculative and incomplete, but I wouldn't say that that means there is no Objectivist theory of music.

What Rand had to say about music was how it should be treated until such time as there is an Objective theory of music.

Yet the Objectivist Esthetics claims that music is an art form. If art must be objective, representational and intelligible according to Objectivism, shouldn't music be relegated to the status of not being a valid art form until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms?

Assuming your tracing and representation ae correct (which I've already said they are not), unfair to suspect, no. Unfair to conclude upon analysis, yup. As for what Objectivism says regarding the topic, see previous.

Please see my previous comment as well: Shouldn't music be removed from the realm of legitimate art forms until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms, i.e., a theory that is a least as objective and detailed as, say, Kandinsky's theory of color?

I asked:

Could you summarize which specific artists' ideas Shaw highlighted in her lecture and how she demonstrated that Kant's ideas were at the root of their theories? Or could you at least share how she characterized Kandinsky's theories, since he is usually thought of as the originator of the type of art that Shaw is linking to Kant's influence?

Kendall replied:

Sure, what do you have to offer me that would make it worth my time to do such a thing for you?

So now you want some sort of payment for answering questions which challenge your views? Suddenly it's a time-consuming ordeal to briefly summarize Shaw's views about a single abstract artist's theories?

How about 8 cents? That's about the highest that I'd estimate your summary to be worth to me.

J

[william.scherk]

Despite trying very carefully to walk on the eggshells over at OO, I'm back in the moderation doghouse. I had been posting on this thread about the Objectivist view that Kant was the "father of modern art."

I have been following along in that thread. The reason you were put into the playpen (if not banned) is that you disagreed with Mr Sniffy. Mr Sniffy knows everything there is to know about, well, everything that is worth knowing.

When you challenge Mr Sniffy with a mild snark at his sniffiness and his preposterous rectitude, you become Evul. And Evul is one thing they don't stand for at OO.

I may be entirely unjustified, but I feel (yes, feel, with a lightning fast spin of my subconscious valuation mechanism), that OO inculcates grandstanding puffery in its denizens. Sniffery and puffery, and a High Church rectitude. That is what they want, and that is what they get. A clutch of sniffy, pedantic overlords rules the roost, and all the little fresh chickens cluck in same format and the same peevish tone as the great sniffy feathered oldtimers.

Kant was evul, bad art is evul, bad evul art is due to Kant, and if you can't see the truth in that, and if you can't see that you deserve the sniffery and puffery, then you too are Evul.

(oddly enough, I PMed Jonathan before he turned clearly evul in the post he reproduces. I warned him that he was coming close to the margins of Evul: "I read threads like this just to see if how long it takes disagreement to become Evul.")

Some corners of Randland are suffused with this 'I have seen the light, and you haven't, so here's the red button' attitude.

They have learned it from the best of the clucky, sniffy, righteous and puffy exemplars, in a straight line back to Holy Writ. For example, the righteous disdain of a poster who declaimed on this thread about Courbet's and Millet's "absurdly high horizon line." Badly imitative of the Pontiff at his sniffy, righteous, pompously ignorant best. With this kind of peevish vainglory, Objectivishism will usher in a world of reason? No baluddy likely.

-- of course, maybe I am wrong, maybe you crossed some invisible line of civility that the cluckers had scraped out in the chicken coop.

[Brant Gaede]

It was an insult. But ...: Why post in such a place?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Update:

My offensive post, minus the "8 cents" comment, has now been posted at OO, and I've received an interesting private message from the moderator.

More later,

J

[Newberry]

I went over to thread mentioned above, and all I can think about is Carolyn Ray's comment to an objectivist audience: "If you are going to discuss Kant, make sure that you have read him."

I didn't get a sense that anyone on that thread has. He is actually fascinating to read once you get into it.

[Dragonfly]

They have learned it from the best of the clucky, sniffy, righteous and puffy exemplars, in a straight line back to Holy Writ. For example, the righteous disdain of a poster who declaimed on this thread about Courbet's and Millet's "absurdly high horizon line."

An absurd comment... With regard to Courbet's painting, the writer apparently doesn't know the difference between a hill and a horizon. I wonder what he'd say about these paintings or this one, these or this one, full with hills, absurdly high horizon lines or even no horizon at all, and that on a site that is highly regarded by orthodox Objectivists! How is it possible that they would recommend a site with so much Kantian paintings!

[Alfonso Jones]

They have learned it from the best of the clucky, sniffy, righteous and puffy exemplars, in a straight line back to Holy Writ. For example, the righteous disdain of a poster who declaimed on this thread about Courbet's and Millet's "absurdly high horizon line."

An absurd comment... With regard to Courbet's painting, the writer apparently doesn't know the difference between a hill and a horizon. I wonder what he'd say about these paintings or this one, these or this one, full with hills, absurdly high horizon lines or even no horizon at all, and that on a site that is highly regarded by orthodox Objectivists! How is it possible that they would recommend a site with so much Kantian paintings!

I think that terms "Kantian" and phrases such as "the problem is epistemological" have become, well, standard catch-phrases which are applied at times with a shocking lack of thought or even of understanding of what Kant actually said (not that such is an easy task - having read a lot of Kant, I'm tempted to say "which Kant" when someone asks me!) or what epistemology means.

Strange: Philosopher R forms an opinion re what PHilosopher K said, to all evidence based on minimal reading of first sources (meaning, what Philosopher K actually wrote, and not just snippets quoted by someone), and then Person O takes what Philosopher R wrote about Philosopher K, and lets that be a shortcut to knowledge for them.

The phrase "second-hander" comes to mind as applicable to Person O.

Note added in edit: I'm not suggesting you as person O, Dragonfly... I hope that is clear.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited July 10, 2008 by Bill P

[Dragonfly]

Note added in edit: I'm not suggesting you as person O, Dragonfly... I hope that is clear.

Sure, I think it was clear enough that I don't take this use of the epithet "Kantian" seriously...

[Barbara Branden]

Bill P: "I think that terms "Kantian" and phrases such as "the problem is epistemological" have become, well, standard catch-phrases which are applied at times with a shocking lack of thought or even of understanding of what Kant actually said...

"Strange: Philosopher R forms an opinion re what PHilosopher K said, to all evidence based on minimal reading of first sources (meaning, what Philosopher K actually wrote, and not just snippets quoted by someone), and then Person O takes what Philosopher R wrote about Philosopher K, and lets that be a shortcut to knowledge for them."

.

Michael Newberry: "I went over to thread mentioned above, and all I can think about is Carolyn Ray's comment to an objectivist audience: 'If you are going to discuss Kant, make sure that you have read him.'

"I didn't get a sense that anyone on that thread has. He is actually fascinating to read once you get into it."

The sound you hear is my applause for you both, The ignorance of many Objectivists about what Kant actually wrote is appalling, and the prevalence of second-hand opinions, stated as gospel, about what he wrote is more appalling.

And yes, Michael, he is fascinating to read, and instructive.

Barbara

[Roger Bissell]

Bill P: "I think that terms "Kantian" and phrases such as "the problem is epistemological" have become, well, standard catch-phrases which are applied at times with a shocking lack of thought or even of understanding of what Kant actually said...

"Strange: Philosopher R forms an opinion re what PHilosopher K said, to all evidence based on minimal reading of first sources (meaning, what Philosopher K actually wrote, and not just snippets quoted by someone), and then Person O takes what Philosopher R wrote about Philosopher K, and lets that be a shortcut to knowledge for them."

.

Michael Newberry: "I went over to thread mentioned above, and all I can think about is Carolyn Ray's comment to an objectivist audience: 'If you are going to discuss Kant, make sure that you have read him.'

"I didn't get a sense that anyone on that thread has. He is actually fascinating to read once you get into it."

The sound you hear is my applause for you both, The ignorance of many Objectivists about what Kant actually wrote is appalling, and the prevalence of second-hand opinions, stated as gospel, about what he wrote is more appalling.

And yes, Michael, he is fascinating to read, and instructive.

Barbara

I agree. You find many, many germs of Objectivist thought in his writings. Perhaps...perhaps...not even ~one~ of them originated from Kant but instead were independently created by Rand. But it is impossible, for instance, to read her writings on aesthetics without wondering if Rand got the inspiration for her view of art as "re-creation of reality" from him.

In general, I think that the "barking dogs" of the Movement (Rand included) have scared far too many people away from reading Kant -- not just for the "horror quotes" about his epistemology, but for the overall systematic sweep and fascinating details of his philosophy.

No, I'm not a Kantian, certainly not any more one than Rand was herself! But there is less distance between their ideas than some would have us believe.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] there is less distance between [Kant's and AR's] ideas than some would have us believe.

I started wondering years ago -- back when Rand was still writing major articles -- if it was precisely the nearness of the distance which was what incensed her. It often does happen that people become angriest with those whose views are close to their own. Later, when I learned how little of Kant in the original AR herself had read, the hypothesis of its being the similarity more than the difference which angered her began to look not as plausible to me as before, but I still think that to the extent she understood what Kant wrote, the lack of distance might have contributed to her vehemence.

Also, I think she needed a Satan figure, a colossal supposedly "antipode" antagonist.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sniffery and puffery, and a High Church rectitude. That is what they want, and that is what they get. A clutch of sniffy, pedantic overlords rules the roost, and all the little fresh chickens cluck in same format and the same peevish tone as the great sniffy feathered oldtimers.

In other words, just like the Old Days? (I don't read OO, but the description could well apply to the way it was back then. Of course, the overlords denied that what they got was what they wanted, but since what they got was the predictable result of what they did..., the denials weren't easy to believe.)

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

[...] there is less distance between [Kant's and AR's] ideas than some would have us believe.

I started wondering years ago -- back when Rand was still writing major articles -- if it was precisely the nearness of the distance which was what incensed her. It often does happen that people become angriest with those whose views are close to their own. Later, when I learned how little of Kant in the original AR herself had read, the hypothesis of its being the similarity more than the difference which angered her began to look not as plausible to me as before, but I still think that to the extent she understood what Kant wrote, the lack of distance might have contributed to her vehemence.

Also, I think she needed a Satan figure, a colossal supposedly "antipode" antagonist.

Ellen

___

Ellen -

I think your analysis is sound in the list of explanations you identify. My read is the your latter explanation (the need for a antipode antagonist) is the most likely candidate for the core reason, with the lack of extensive first-hand exposure to Kant's writing being a contributing factor. (It's easier to misunderstand someone by imputing to them positions they don't hold when you don't know their writings very well.) Your first explanation might explain the vehemence of the attacks on Kant, but not the stated grounds of them.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited July 10, 2008 by Bill P

[Newberry]

The sound you hear is my applause for you both, The ignorance of many Objectivists about what Kant actually wrote is appalling, and the prevalence of second-hand opinions, stated as gospel, about what he wrote is more appalling.

And yes, Michael, he is fascinating to read, and instructive.

Barbara

Thanks. Yep, fascinating he is.

Michael