Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?

[moralist]

Actually, Greg, you made it an issue of gender when you redefined the words man, male, woman, and female.

Do the terms man and woman apply to the animal kingdom?

They do not.

Do the terms man and woman exclusively apply to humans?

Yes they do.

So that's hardly a redefinition. However, there is a moral distinction. As humans are unique in that they are morally accountable for their behavior, whereas animals are not.

I told you this was a touchy topic to broach. Whenever a line is drawn, someone will always take general comments personally. An emotional reaction possesses the power to fixate the reactor's attention upon the source of their reaction. Externally fixated attention is always a distraction from something else that's going on inside.

Greg

[moralist]

Can we get some definitions here:

male

man

female

woman

You first Greg, if you do not mind.

A...

Sure.

A man is what a male should aspire to become.

A woman is what a female should aspire to become.

Everyone begins life as females and males.

But not everyone grows to become men and women.

Thanks.

Those are not "definitional," however, they are helpful.

A...

When I consult a dictionary I always like where the word is used in a sentence. As the context can many times paint finer more subtle shades of meaning than a list of disconnected synonyms.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Do the terms man and woman apply to the animal kingdom?

They do not.

Do the terms man and woman exclusively apply to humans?

Yes they do.

So the moral division between deer would be these two distinctly different groups:

1. bucks and does

2. males and females

It is morality which makes bucks out of males and does out of females.

Same with roosters and hens. Toms and queens. Dogs and bitches. Bulls and cows. Jackasses and jennies. Hobs and jills. Tods and vixens. Billies and nannies. Ganders and geese. Boars and sows. Stallions and mares. Rams and ewes...

J

[moralist]

So the moral division between deer would be these two distinctly different groups:

1. bucks and does

Men and women are not generally referred to as bucks and does.

[Jonathan]

"Air quotes" are worse, so cringingly mega-annoying, that people should lose a finger everytime they etch them.

[....]

Such quote-unquoters should be burned, open parenthesis close parenthesis, at the stake.

J

And you folks think the tunnel scene is excessive!

Ellen

...The female in Roomette 6, Car No. 17, had acquired the habit of doing, quote unquote, air-quotes with her fingers...

J

[Jonathan]

So the moral division between deer would be these two distinctly different groups:

1. bucks and does

Men and women are not generally referred to as bucks and does.

Who said that they are?!!!

J

[caroljane]

Some men and women were referred to in the antebellum \South as bucks and wenches.An ancestor of the Gregian nomenclature?

[caroljane]

Ellen, do not associate me with Jonathan's draconian stance on the Quote-Unquoter sect of the Notreallyquoting Quoters (NRYQQ's). Though his approach is generally sound,his principles lead him to an excessively absolutist position here.

You should know that there is a progressive wing of the NO to NYRQQ movement which holds that these offenders should not be burned at the stake, but just tortured until they repent. If they backslide, well then yeah, they gotta fry.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Carol,

The very thought of having a finger lopped off - how would I play the piano?! - seems more Draconian to me than that of being burned at the stake, so I'm afraid I'll have to see Jonathan's position as progressive by comparison to yours. You've given me a nightmare from now until kingdom come. Woe is I.

Ellen

[moralist]

Some men and women were referred to in the antebellum \South as bucks and wenches.

...accurately denoting the animal behavior of males and females.

[caroljane]

No. Accurately denoting the behaviour of southern "Gentlemen" who owned other human beings, characterizing the males whom they sensed to be dangerous as animals, and the females whom they perceived as human enough to have sex with as worthy of being called girls..

[caroljane]

Wench is an old English term denoting a little or young girl, often affectionately. It was handily adopted by slaveowners. Indeed many plantation wenches did not live long enough to become mammies.

[moralist]

No. Accurately denoting the behaviour of southern "Gentlemen" who owned other human beings, characterizing the males whom they sensed to be dangerous as animals, and the females whom they perceived as human enough to have sex with as worthy of being called girls..

If that is the case, then that descriptor is invalid because it was created by animals.

Why the need to dig into the dead past trying to make a point?

[caroljane]

There is no such thing as a dead past, unless you are a Neanderthal. in this case it is a very near past,in human historical terms. I did not make the point, the great-great-grandfathers of many Americans made it, emphatically.

[moralist]

There is no such thing as a dead past, unless you are a Neanderthal.

All just from drawing a moral line between females and males... and men and women. A touchy subject to be sure...

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

No. Accurately denoting the behaviour of southern "Gentlemen" who owned other human beings, characterizing the males whom they sensed to be dangerous as animals, and the females whom they perceived as human enough to have sex with as worthy of being called girls..

An argument for homosexuality?

--Kant

"boys"--then they can all grow up into equality with their own generation--not the "Gentlemen"'s--Hud?

[Jonathan]

No. Accurately denoting the behaviour of southern "Gentlemen" who owned other human beings, characterizing the males whom they sensed to be dangerous as animals, and the females whom they perceived as human enough to have sex with as worthy of being called girls..

If that is the case, then that descriptor is invalid because it was created by animals.

"If" it was the case??!!!!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

No. Accurately denoting the behaviour of southern "Gentlemen" who owned other human beings, characterizing the males whom they sensed to be dangerous as animals, and the females whom they perceived as human enough to have sex with as worthy of being called girls..

If that is the case, then that descriptor is invalid because it was created by animals.

Why the need to dig into the dead past trying to make a point?

Shakespeare, among others, used "wench." According to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, the first known use was in the 14th century.

I still hear people use it occasionally. Occasionally my husband uses it addressing me. In my mid-teens to mid-twenties, I heard both "young buck" and "wench" - "comely wench" - used pretty often by farm people and horse people referring to persons in their own circles. Also "young stud" for "full of oats" young males.

When I first read Atlas and read what Rand said about Nathaniel Branden in the "About the Author" self-description at the end of the book, the immediate thought which came to my mind was, "He's probably some young stud she has a thing about."

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... a specific act of posing as a genius: When caught in an irrational, incoherent position and challenged to explain it, one offers no substance, but just acts as if one is being bothered with personal requests to do others' thinking for them.

It's kind of a doubly irrational misidentification of how the burden of proof works. Rational people understand that they have the burden of supporting their assertions with evidence and logic. Irrational people think that they can make assertions and that others then have the burden of refuting them with evidence and logic. Well, these doubly irrational poseurs act as if they believe that when they make an assertion, it is their opponents' burden to help them support it with evidence and logic!

It's like this:

Doubly Irrational Person: My theory is that X is true.

Rational Person: Then prove that X is true.

Doubly Irrational Person: I'm not going to do your thinking and your homework for you!!!

Somehow we are being lazy and shirking our burdens by not proving his assertions!

Jonathan,

You referenced the post I just quoted in a recent discussion and I want to add a comment.

Removing the personalities and focusing on just the epistemology, I believe there is a cause for this "Doubly Irrational Genius Pose" a lot of the time and it's not just conceit of airheadedness or anything like that.

To myself, I call it the Guru Loopback Trap.

(Hey! We're getting our own jargon! )

... I read a book called Feet of Clay by Anthony Storr. In discussing David Koresh, he quoted a person who knew Koresh from earlier days. The guy said that the way he saw Koresh work was that he would get an urge of some sort then try it out on his followers (usually framing it as divinely inspired or something like that). If he got positive feedback and people started believing it, he would start believing it himself.

This is a trap almost all gurus face with their disciples.

This isn't just limited to established gurus and authority figures. This can also be valid for anyone who has a group of friends who agree with him.

For instance, suppose I am just an average Joe. I read something that impresses me, but I haven't really thought it through. I lay it on my friends and they are impressed. We discuss it and they start coming up with examples and arguments that seem to validate it. The more they talk, the more I become convinced this idea was a great one, until after a point, this becomes an article of faith in our little group. And since I brought it to the group, I'm the expert at it. I have dibs on that idea, so to speak. Anyone new who shows up and challenges it within the context of my group is treated to peer pressure and precanned jargon (and dogma and conundrums and strawmen, etc.), not reasoned arguments.

Then I go talk to people who have studied this issue deeply from different angles. When I lay my wonderful truth on them and await my deserved reward of agreement and praise for being so wise, they question me about some basics and fundamentals of how I arrived at that conclusion. And they don't sound convinced. WTF? Is this what the enemy looks like? Go do your own friggen' homework! My people aren't around, so all I've got really is sputtering and irritation. I never honed the critical thinking part this and often not the research.

I've been treated as an expert for so long by my group in this Guru Loopback Trap that I believe it myself. And that started a while ago so the neural pathway in my brain has become a highway. When I meet the real deal, it's confusing and galling to contemplate I might not be such an expert on that issue after all.

It stings to pull out of that mindset. I believe that's the reason for such stubbornness a lot of the time when this comes up. It's pain avoidance, not just vanity.

I know I had to go through coming out of that. Did it sting at first? Yup.

But like they used to say about Death Valley, there are many ways in and only one way out.

Michael

[Jonathan]

... a specific act of posing as a genius: When caught in an irrational, incoherent position and challenged to explain it, one offers no substance, but just acts as if one is being bothered with personal requests to do others' thinking for them.

It's kind of a doubly irrational misidentification of how the burden of proof works. Rational people understand that they have the burden of supporting their assertions with evidence and logic. Irrational people think that they can make assertions and that others then have the burden of refuting them with evidence and logic. Well, these doubly irrational poseurs act as if they believe that when they make an assertion, it is their opponents' burden to help them support it with evidence and logic!

It's like this:

Doubly Irrational Person: My theory is that X is true.

Rational Person: Then prove that X is true.

Doubly Irrational Person: I'm not going to do your thinking and your homework for you!!!

Somehow we are being lazy and shirking our burdens by not proving his assertions!

Jonathan,

You referenced the post I just quoted in a recent discussion and I want to add a comment.

Removing the personalities and focusing on just the epistemology, I believe there is a cause for this "Doubly Irrational Genius Pose" a lot of the time and it's not just conceit of airheadedness or anything like that.

To myself, I call it the Guru Loopback Trap.

(Hey! We're getting our own jargon! )

... I read a book called Feet of Clay by Anthony Storr. In discussing David Koresh, he quoted a person who knew Koresh from earlier days. The guy said that the way he saw Koresh work was that he would get an urge of some sort then try it out on his followers (usually framing it as divinely inspired or something like that). If he got positive feedback and people started believing it, he would start believing it himself.

This is a trap almost all gurus face with their disciples.

This isn't just limited to established gurus and authority figures. This can also be valid for anyone who has a group of friends who agree with him.

For instance, suppose I am just an average Joe. I read something that impresses me, but I haven't really thought it through. I lay it on my friends and they are impressed. We discuss it and they start coming up with examples and arguments that seem to validate it. The more they talk, the more I become convinced this idea was a great one, until after a point, this becomes an article of faith in our little group. And since I brought it to the group, I'm the expert at it. I have dibs on that idea, so to speak. Anyone new who shows up and challenges it within the context of my group is treated to peer pressure and precanned jargon (and dogma and conundrums and strawmen, etc.), not reasoned arguments.

Then I go talk to people who have studied this issue deeply from different angles. When I lay my wonderful truth on them and await my deserved reward of agreement and praise for being so wise, they question me about some basics and fundamentals of how I arrived at that conclusion. And they don't sound convinced. WTF? Is this what the enemy looks like? Go do your own friggen' homework! My people aren't around, so all I've got really is sputtering and irritation. I never honed the critical thinking part this and often not the research.

I've been treated as an expert for so long by my group in this Guru Loopback Trap that I believe it myself. And that started a while ago so the neural pathway in my brain has become a highway. When I meet the real deal, it's confusing and galling to contemplate I might not be such an expert on that issue after all.

It stings to pull out of that mindset. I believe that's the reason for such stubbornness a lot of the time when this comes up. It's pain avoidance, not just vanity.

I know I had to go through coming out of that. Did it sting at first? Yup.

But like they used to say about Death Valley, there are many ways in and only one way out.

Michael

I think that your concept of "Guru Loopback Trap" is not only valid, but very common in Objectivist circles. I think it's the primary disease that infected Pigero-Rowlands-Cresswell-Newberry-etc. Newberry passed it on to Stephen Hicks. (Check out this and this -- Hicks tells of hearing from his echo chamber of friends that I'm a big meanie, and therefore not "fun, productive or otherwise worth talking with." He has absolutely ZERO interest in rationally examining the issues that I brought up. He is apparently convinced that I cannot possibly be right that he has made mistakes in his understanding and judgment of Kant. He is convinced that my pointing out his errors and challenging them is nothing but "anger.")

Kamhi and Torres also are also stuck in the "Guru Loopback Trap," especially Torres. His current primary function in life is telling readers at the Wall Street Journal online's Life & Culture comments section what is not art. It's his hobby horse, and mine used to be knocking him off his. But, like Hicks, Newberry, etc., I've never gotten responses from him on the substance of my criticisms of his mistaken ideas and self-contradictions. It seems that they all believe that their best defense is to avoid substance.

I think a big part of it is exposure and reputation. These people have spent years proudly promoting their ideas, and hearing nothing but applause from their group of pals and followers. And then suddenly someone is challenging their ideas with very simple, elementary questions that they obviously overlooked. The immediate question that comes to mind is how could these grand genius gurus not have asked themselves the most basic of questions? How little critical thinking must they have done? And now that they've been gurus for such a long time, and they've publicly repeated their wrongheaded opinions for years or decades, how could they possibly admit that they were mistaken? How much work would they have to do to untangle their intellectual messes? Wouldn't it just be easier to shun and smear the critic, and ban him from posting whenever possible?

It's quite interesting to observe in action. I find it especially interesting when they take it way beyond what even I predict. I always think that at some point, these people will have to realize that they're really making fools of themselves in denying reality, avoiding substance and throwing tantrums about being criticized. But they don't. They don't give an inch. No amount of reality makes it through.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's quite interesting to observe in action. I find it especially interesting when they take it way beyond what even I predict. I always think that at some point, these people will have to realize that they're really making fools of themselves in denying reality, avoiding substance and throwing tantrums about being criticized. But they don't. They don't give an inch. No amount of reality makes it through.

Jonathan,

In order for your criticisms to get through, they first have to be noticed. I think that in the cases of at least some of the people you mention, what you write is simply ignored instead of being read.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

It's quite interesting to observe in action. I find it especially interesting when they take it way beyond what even I predict. I always think that at some point, these people will have to realize that they're really making fools of themselves in denying reality, avoiding substance and throwing tantrums about being criticized. But they don't. They don't give an inch. No amount of reality makes it through.

Jonathan,

In order for your criticisms to get through, they first have to be noticed. I think that in the cases of at least some of the people you mention, what you write is simply ignored instead of being read.

Ellen

Philosophy is about control (of self and others). Thus it properly informs the reason, morality and politics of a free-willed (human) organism. That Hicks is a philosopher doing esthetics makes him a quack because he's not sticking to his own, personal esthetics, but a more general out there in the world esthetics or control of others. As a discipline esthetics does not belong to philosophy so a philospher does not properly tell a painter how and what to paint--what he should do--or tell an esthetician how and what to study and the conclusions he will/must find from the alleged philosophical context.

--Brant

one meaning of freedom is freedom from a philosopher just as the philospher is free from you (here's what your philosophy should be, said the engineer to the philosopher--NOT!)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan:

I normally don't go around advertising one thread on another. (I link to relevant posts instead.)

But the thread below is right up your alley. I think Postrel is doing for real what all the people trying to theorize within a framework of Rand's aesthetics are only glimpsing.

Glamour - Postrel and Getting This Right

I know this got me pumped all of a sudden.

Michael

[Jonathan]

It's quite interesting to observe in action. I find it especially interesting when they take it way beyond what even I predict. I always think that at some point, these people will have to realize that they're really making fools of themselves in denying reality, avoiding substance and throwing tantrums about being criticized. But they don't. They don't give an inch. No amount of reality makes it through.

Jonathan,

In order for your criticisms to get through, they first have to be noticed. I think that in the cases of at least some of the people you mention, what you write is simply ignored instead of being read.

Ellen

Kamhi is the only one that may not be aware of my criticisms. Of the rest, they may indeed have reached a point where they refuse to read my comments. It's a pretty standard play in the guru loopback playbook.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan:

I normally don't go around advertising one thread on another. (I link to relevant posts instead.)

But the thread below is right up your alley. I think Postrel is doing for real what all the people trying to theorize within a framework of Rand's aesthetics are only glimpsing.

Glamour - Postrel and Getting This Right

I know this got me pumped all of a sudden.

Michael

Thanks for the link. It looks very promising.

J