dan_edge

Victor Pross has "exposed" me as a plagiarist on the (unmoderated) Ayn Rand Meetup forum. --Dan Edge

Victor Pross, post #225 of This Thread "If so, the answer is no. Of course we experience art in a direct and tangible way that might be expressed in an emotional way---but how is that different from anything else we experience in life? Just to pick a highly emotional non-artistic observation as an example: many of us have a very strong personal emotional reaction when it comes to spiders, but this does this make us incompetent of making rational evaluation about their danger, if such is the case? No, it does not. Here’s another example: someone might have strong personal feelings about an engagement ring, but this does not necessarily impede one’s ability to appraise the financial value, its material composition, or craftsmanship. Likewise, it is quite possible to set aside our personal prejudices if we wish to and evaluate works of art based on their objective qualities rather than merely how we react to them [such as theme or subject matter] at a personal or emotional level." Brian Yoder, Q+A on ArtRenewal.com "In a word, no. Of course we experience art in a direct and tangible way that might be expressed in specific emotional ways, but how is that different from anything else we experience in life? Just to pick another highly emotional non-artistic observation, many of us have a very strong personal emotional reaction against the idea of touching snakes and spiders, but does this make us incapable of making rational evaluation about their danger or practical uses or dangers? Certainly not. To chose a more man-made example, someone might have strong personal feelings about a wedding ring, but this does not (necessarily) impede his ability to evaluate its financial value, its material composition, or craftsmanship. Likewise, it is quite possible to set aside our personal prejudices (if we wish to) and evaluate works of art based on their objective qualities rather than merely how we react to them at a personal or emotional level." ------------------ --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread "Objectivism, as you know, advocates egoism: this is the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being. Egoism, it must be stressed, is simply the corollary of individual human life as the moral standard. This view opposes the ethical tradition of altruism, the notion that a person's primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the sacrifice of his own welfare." Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR "Objectivism advocates egoism, the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being. Egoism is simply the corollary of individual human life as the moral standard. This view opposes the ethical tradition of altruism, the notion that a person's primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the sacrifice of his own welfare." ------------ There's more from this post, but you get the idea. --Dan Edge Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Here is another phrase that got left out, but here is also a section from Peikoff that was plagiarized. Pross did not even bother to change Table of Contents type capitalization when he copy/pasted from Peikoff's OPAR page. Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread Objectivist egoism explicitly champions long-term, rational self-interest and should not be confused with subjectivist egoism, which through the centuries has advocated short-term, irrational self-interest through hedonism, irresponsibility, context-dropping, and plundering. Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR Objectivist egoism explicitly advocates long-term, rational self-interest and should not be confused with subjectivist egoism, which through the centuries has advocated short-term, irrational self-interest through hedonism, irresponsibility, context-dropping, and whim-worship. Victor Pross, Post #199 of This Thread 1. Independence. Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles. 2. Honesty as the Rejection of Unreality. 3. Justice as Rationality in the Evaluation of Men. 4. Productiveness as the Adjustment of Nature to Man. Pride as Moral Ambitiousness 5. The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil. Leonard Peikoff, Table of Contents for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Chapter 8: Virtue * Independence as a Primary Orientation to Reality, Not to Other Men * Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles * Honesty as the Rejection of Unreality * Justice as Rationality in the Evaluation of Men * Productiveness as the Adjustment of Nature to Man * Pride as Moral Ambitiousness * The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil

Victor Pross, Post #196 of This Thread "Values are Objective. Values, like concepts, are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but objective. Values (such as objects and actions) are good to man and for the sake of reaching specific goals, the most fundamental of which is the sustenance of an individual's own life. Thus, it has been argued, the conscious choice to live precedes and underlies the need of morality." Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR "For Objectivism, values, like concepts, are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but objective. Values (such as objects and actions) are good to man and for the sake of reaching specific goals, the most fundamental of which is the sustenance of an individual's own life. Thus, the conscious choice to live precedes and underlies the need of morality." Victor Pross, Post #196 of This Thread "Both intrinsicism and subjectivism reject the notion of objective values for the same reasons that they reject the notion of objective concepts. Intrinsicism divorces "the good" from reason, alleging that "the good" is an intrinsic property of external objects or actions. Subjectivism divorces "the good" from reality, claiming that "the good" is whatever a person (or group of persons) says it is. Thus, neither philosophy provides a real-world, practical code of morality." Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR "Both intrinsicism and subjectivism reject the notion of objective values for the same reasons that they reject the notion of objective concepts (see Chapter 4). Intrinsicism divorces "the good" from reason, claiming that "the good" is an intrinsic property of external objects or actions. Subjectivism divorces "the good" from reality, claiming that "the good" is whatever a person (or group of persons) says it is. Thus, neither philosophy provides a real-world, practical code of morality." ---------- More of Pross's favorite. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Post #152 of This Thread "Man’s ability to conceptualize—mentally to abstract, isolate and integrate observed particulars—enables him in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences his actions. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action." Attributed Elsewhere to George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God "Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate, and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action..." Victor Pross, Post #152 of This Thread "Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a give manner—he requires a code of values—a system of principles—to direct his choices. Man’s volitional nature necessitates that he chose to think and act in order to survive." Attributed Elsewhere to George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God "Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive." ---------------- This is another recycled plagiarism, copied from the same source, which Ellen is working on. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Some of this material also was used by Pross here.)

Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread “Politics is the science that defines the principles of a proper social system, including the proper functions of government. It defines man's relationship among each other by applying ethics to social questions.” Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR “Politics is the fourth major branch of philosophy. It is the science that defines the principles of a proper social system, including the proper functions of government. It defines man's relationship among each other by applying ethics to social questions.” Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread “Morality, it as been stated numerous times, is that code of values. A valid moral code must address human needs long-range, conceptualizing the requirements of human survival into an integrated, hierarchically structured, non-contradictory system of reliable principles. Such a code must hold human life as its standard of value…” Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR “Morality is that code of values. A valid moral code must address human needs long-range, conceptualizing the requirements of human survival into an integrated, hierarchically structured, noncontradictory system of reliable principles. Such a code must thus hold human life as its standard of value.” ------------------ Setzer is one of Pross's favorites! --Dan Edge Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Here is a passage that was missed: Victor Pross, Post #149 of This Thread . . . plants and animals have no choice in their pursuit of values: they follow them automatically based on their ingrained survival mechanisms driven by sensations and percepts. Because human beings, on the other hand, are volitional and conceptual -- they follow no automatic course of action. Thus, unlike all other organisms, human beings require a code of fundamental values accepted by choice in order to survive. Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR Plants and animals have no choice in their pursuit of values; they pursue them automatically based on their inbuilt survival mechanisms driven by sensations and percepts. Because human beings are volitional and conceptual, they follow no automatic course of action. Thus, unlike all other organisms, human beings require a code of fundamental values accepted by choice in order to survive.

This is another recycled plagiarism that I remembered from one of the other busts. ---------------- Victor Pross, Post #147 of This Thread "What is morality? A morality—any morality—is a set of rules of conduct to guide the actions of an individual human being. THIS—and only this—is what all possible moralities have in common. As Rand put it: “A code of values to guide man’s choices and actions.” Rand asked, Why should there be any morality at all? (This is a question that has been put to Daniel who has failed to answer it). Rand’s question is a normative question, so let’s rearticulate it in a factual provisos: What would happen to a man who practiced no morality? (This echoes Rand’s “immortal robot”). A man who practiced no morality would be a man whose behavior was guided by no rules at all." "Ayn Marx", Post on Google Group Study of Religion "What is a morality? A morality- any morality- is a set of rules to guide the actions of an individual human being. This I suggest is the only thing all possible moralities have in common. Given this, let's ask what I take to be a normative question, why should there be any morality at all? Attempting to re-phrase this in factual terms; what we may ask would happen if humanity practiced no morality? A man who practiced no morality would be a man whose behavior was guided by no rules at all." Victor Pross, Post #147 of This Thread "Rand outlined the basic structure of her ethical system, and I want to summarize it while standing on one logical foot: A, Living beings, and only living beings, have values (goals). B, Man, being volitional, must choose his values. C, Values may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. (An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless). D, Life is an ultimate end, the only ‘end in itself.’ E, Therefore, the only meaningful of justifiable values a man can choose—objectively—are those which serve to sustain his life. Man cannot survive by any random means." "Ayn Marx", Post on Google Group Study of Religion "1: Living beings, and only living beings, have values, goals. 2: Man, being volitional, must choose his values. 3: Values-goals- may be a means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end . An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would , I suggest , be meaningless and impossible. 4: Life is an ultimate end, and furthermore I want to claim, it is the only possible ultimate end, the only 'end in itself'. 5: Therefore the only meaningful or justifiable values we can choose are those which serve to sustain life" ----------------- --Dan Edge Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. The site referenced for "Ayn Marx" is the first that comes up on a Google search, but it is a site in Arabic from Morocco (post contents in English, though). The same group and discussion, with identical posts, is copied for domains in other countries, so it is most likely that while the plagiarism came from "Ayn Marx," the actual site used for copying was another. For another reference, here is the one for USA. Others countries are given here. The other place this same material was used by Pross was here. LATER NOTE (July 12, 2007): Apparently "Ayn Marx" was also plagiarizing. Her posts on other forums are from Ronald E. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand (see here).

Victor Pross, Post #145 of This Thread "The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes or propositions. Here is the formulation from a standard text on logic by Lionel Ruby’s Logic: An Introduction. 1.The Law of Identity: for things, the law asserts that “A is A,” or “anything is itself.” For propositions: “If a proposition is true, then it is true.” 2. The Law of the Excluded Middle: For things: “Anything is either A or not A.” For propositions: “A proposition is true, then it is true.” 3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: “Nothing can be both A and not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false.” " "Battlegear", post on Faith Based Knowledge "The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes or propositions. Here is the forumluation from a standard text on logic: 1. The Law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself," For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true." 2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things "Anything is either A or not -A" For propositions "A proposition, such as P, is eiher true or false." 3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions:"A propositions, P cannot be both true and false."" ----------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Post #130 of This Thread "The “practical” can be defined as "that which reaches or fosters a desired result." Historically, a dichotomy between morality and practicality (which has is-ought implications) has been sermonized by dozens of philosophers. This argument is ingrained in the age-old dichotomy between concepts and percepts, which has been closed by the Objectivist theory of concept-formation, and this has fueled the is-ought split, but not this alone. But Objectivism defines a practical set of virtues which are, by definition, the behavior patterns required to achieve values that support individual human life." Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR "Practical can be defined as "that which reaches or fosters a desired result." Historically, a dichotomy between morality and practicality has been preached. This argument is rooted in the age-old dichotomy between concepts and percepts, which has recently been closed by the Objectivist theory of concept-formation. Objectivism defines a practical set of virtues which are, by definition, the behavior patterns required to achieve values that support individual human life." ------------------ Michael, you may have to delete every single one of Victor Pross's posts (or at least edit them so that they have no content) in order to eliminate the scourge of plagiarism he left here. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Post #110 of This Thread "The skeptic holds to the view that we should “suspend judgment” about everything. Such a position, to say the least, is hard to live by: How, for example, can we go about our lives while refusing to accept the validity of inductive inferences? Hume, (the disconcerting philosopher) who first purported the impossibility of justifying induction, found that when he left his philosophical study, he was unable to prevent himself from believing in the procedure! (There were those moments when he thought this irrational of himself and took to drink.) This conflict of "practical action" and “theoretical belief” has bothered generations of thinkers familiar with Hume's skeptical writings..." Max More, Pan-critical Rationalism - Copyright 1994 "The skeptic reacts to this situation by holding that since nothing can be supported rationally, we should (try to) suspend judgment about everything. Such a position is hard to live by: How, for example, can we go about our lives while refusing to accept the validity of inductive inferences? David Hume, the disturbing philosopher who first demonstrated the impossibility of justifying induction, found that when he left his philosophical study, he was unable to prevent himself from believing in the procedure that, in his reflective moments, he believed to be irrational. This conflict of practical action and theoretical belief has bothered generations of thinkers familiar with Hume's skeptical writings." ----------------------- --Dan Edge Note from MSK: Thank you Dan. Duly edited. There is another section that should be mentioned. Victor Pross, Post #110 of This Thread Here’s an illustration to indicate the gap between the debaters: Victor was human and he died. MSK was human and he died. Darrell was human and he died. [and so on...] *Observed past regularities will always continue into the future.* Therefore, the next human being will die--as all humans must die. Now an Objectivist cannot deny the conclusion if we accept the truth of the premises. Max More, Pan-critical Rationalism - Copyright 1994 We can make the inference deductively valid by adding a premise: Alice was human and she died. Bob was human and he died. Chris was human and he died. [and so on...] Observed past regularities will always continue into the future. Therefore, the next human I observe will die. Now we cannot deny the conclusion if we accept the truth of the premises.

Victor Pross, Post #39 of this Thread "Man’s ability to conceptualize—mentally to abstract, isolate and integrate observed particulars—enables him in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences his actions. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action. And, I hasten to add, volition does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man’s thoughts and actions are uncaused. It means: in regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent. [Now, in this case, my approach in this regard differs from MSK’s] Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a give manner—he requires a code of values—a system of principles—to direct his choices. Man’s volitional nature necessitates that he chose to think and act in order to survive." Quote attributed elsewhere to George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God "Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate, and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action, that he has the capacity to generate and sustain a thought process and a physical movement. It should be mentioned that volition, properly considered, does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man's thoughts and actions are uncaused; it means, instead, that with regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent; man is the cause. Volition entails a man's freedom to choose among existing alternatives, his choice not being determined by factors beyond his control. Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive." --------------------- Since the above post is a typed copy from the book, it may contain inaccuracies, and the poster did not give a page reference (though he did reference the book and author). Good job, Laure. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Some of this material also was used by Pross here.)

It seems Pross's plagiary extends beyond articles, to posts in response. Michael, please notify Joe Kellard and CapMag of the plagiary, also. --------------------- Victor Pross, Post #25 of this thread "And as if Pollack hadn't already plumbed the depths of modern "art," along came those who dipped worms into colored paint and had them wriggle on a canvas to produce a "painting"; or simply covered a canvas in black paint alone1; or dotted a painting with blobs of elephant dung.2 The former two "paintings" won thousand dollar prizes at art shows; the latter won the Turner Prize, Britain's top art award." Joe Kellard, The Modernists Embrace Normality, 1999 "And as if Pollack hadn't already plumbed the depths of modern "art," along came those who dipped worms into colored paint and had them wriggle on a canvas to produce a "painting"; or simply covered a canvas in black paint alone1; or dotted a painting with blobs of elephant dung.2 The former two "paintings" won thousand dollar prizes at art shows; the latter won the Turner Prize, Britain's top art award." Victor Pross, Post #25 of this thread "The campaigners of such "art" used language that is equally impenetrable to describe it. A critic once said that a canvas messed with smears of paint had "plastic disintegration of rhythmic essence." A painting that had the technical skill of a child was praised as "having a phenomenal degree of micro-cosmic synthesis of three-dimensional entity."" Joe Kellard, The Modernists Embrace Normality, 1999 "The praisers of such "art" used language that is equally incomprehensible to describe it. A critic once said that a canvas messed with smears of paint had "plastic disintegration of rhythmic essence." A painting that had the technical skill of a child was praised as "having a phenomenal degree of micro-cosmic synthesis of three-dimensional entity."" Victor Pross, Post #25 of this thread Although the practitioners of modern "art" have posed as individualists, the nonconformity they embody is as socially-oriented as any slavish conformist. Just as the conformist accepts the standards of others as his own--without validating them rationally against reality's facts--so does the modernist operate by the standards of others -- the opposite of anything others uphold. Joe Kellard, The Modernists Embrace Normality, 1999 "Although the practitioners and praisers of modern "art" have posed as individualists, the nonconformity they embody is as socially-oriented as any conformist. Just as the conformist accepts the standards of others as his own without validating them rationally against reality's facts, so does the modernist operate by the standards of others -- the opposite of anything others uphold..." Victor Pross, Post #25 of this thread "Because they opposed objectivity in art, the modernists could preach that there are to be no objective standards in art, such as comprehensible representations or clarity. By opposing definitions and standards as "restrictive," they could preach that the artists must be "free" to "create" anything he desires. [Pross's speaks with his own voice for this enlightening passage] They complain that reality is boring. I hear this shit in art circles all the time. [End Pross, continue plagiary] These falsehoods remain their primary means of destroying art and it thereby makes their deliberately nonrepresentational, incomprehensible "art" anti-art." Joe Kellard, The Modernists Embrace Normality, 1999 "Because they opposed objectivity, the modernists could preach that there are to be no objective standards in art, such as comprehensible representations or clarity. By opposing definitions and standards as "restrictive," they could preach that the artists must be "free" to "create" anything he desires. These falsehoods remain their primary means of destroying art, and thereby makes their deliberately nonrepresentational, incomprehensible "art" anti-art." ---------------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Most of this article is also plagiarized. Victor posted this on the Ayn Rand Meetup forum, and where I exposed the plagiary. --Dan Edge

Victor Pross, Objectivist Ethics: Life as the Standard, 2007 "In modern times we don’t accept any of these means of argument to reconcile a factual question such as whether the earth revolves around the sun. Why should we accept them in determining moral questions? How should we determine the truth of moral dilemmas?" "Ayn Marx", post on Google Group 'Study of Religion,' 2006 "Post enlightenment many of these modes of argument would not be accepted as ways of solving questions such as, say, whether the earth revolves around the sun. Why then are we beginning again to accept them in determining moral questions? If we want to avoid regressing to such modes of 'thought' as determining moral questions how should we determine the truth of a moral dilemma?" Victor Pross, Objectivist Ethics: Life as the Standard, 2007 "...Rand attacked the problem by going to the root, to the question of meta-ethics’ and that instead of asking “Which morality is correct?”, she asked “Just what is morality?” " "Ayn Marx", post on Google Group 'Study of Religion,' 2006 My approach is to attack the problem of morality/ethics by going to what I see as the root, that is to meta-ethics. Instead of asking, which morality is correct I begin in the Randian manner and ask 'Just what IS morality'? Victor Pross, Objectivist Ethics: Life as the Standard, 2007 "A morality—any morality—be it the Christian morality or Utilitarianism or the Kantian imperatives—is a set of rules to guide the actions of an individual human being. This is the only thing any morality has in common. Given this, asked Rand, why should there be any morality at all? Why not simply dispense with the whole subject all together? Why should we accept any morality?" "Ayn Marx", post on Google Group 'Study of Religion,' 2006 "A morality- any morality- is a set of rules to guide the actions of an individual human being. This I suggest is the only thing all possible moralities have in common. Given this, let's ask what I take to be a normative question, why should there be any morality at all? Attempting to re-phrase this in factual terms; what we may ask would happen if humanity practiced no morality?" Victor Pross, Objectivist Ethics: Life as the Standard, 2007 "1, Living beings—and only living beings—have values (goals). 2, Man, being volitional, must choose his values. 3, Values (goals) may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless. 4, Life is the ultimate end, and the only ‘end in itself.’ 5, Therefore, the only meaningful values a man can choose are those which serve to sustain his life. The logical inference which leads to the conclusion is sound. Premises 1, 2 and 3 don’t seem open to serious attack. The battle is over premise 4." "Ayn Marx", post on Google Group 'Study of Religion,' 2006 "1: Living beings, and only living beings, have values, goals. 2: Man, being volitional, must choose his values. 3: Values-goals- may be a means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end . An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would , I suggest , be meaningless and impossible. 4: Life is an ultimate end, and furthermore I want to claim, it is the only possible ultimate end, the only 'end in itself'. 5: Therefore the only meaningful or justifiable values we can choose are those which serve to sustain life. I'm aware premises 1,2 & 3 can be challenged but suggest they cannot be seriously debunked. The real challenge is in defending premise 4." ----------------- There's more, but that should be enough. Pross lifted virtually this entire article from the "Ayn Marx" post. --Dan Edge Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Some of the material from "Ayn Marx" was also used by Pross here. LATER NOTE (July 12, 2007): Apparently "Ayn Marx" was also plagiarizing. Her posts on other forums are from Ronald E. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand (see here).

Pross Recycled this plagiary in another article he posted on the Ayn Rand Meetup forum, for which I busted him earlier: Victor Pross - Philosophy Attacks Objectivism and Objectivity - 2006 "Today’s intellectuals, media commentaries, or just standard-issued people with intellectual inclinations—all of whom know Ayn Rand--are predominately products of the modern education system, which has bombarded them with the tenets of skepticism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altruism, pragmatism: knowledge is impossible, no one can know anything for certain, there is no independent reality, all ethics are arbitrary..." Michael Smith - Post on "Public and Intellectuals" on Objectivism Online - 2004 "Today's intellectuals are predominantly products of the modern education system, which has bombarded them with the tenets of skepticism and pragmatism: knowledge is impossible, no one can know anything for certain, there is no independent reality, all ethics are arbitrary, etc." --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Art, a sense of Life and selectivity "Ayn Rand draws a crucial distinction between ESTHITIC RESPONSE and what she terms ESTEHTIC JUDGEMENT. The former is a spontaneous emotional reaction—the latter is a function of intellectual appraisal. “Whether one shares or does not share an artist’s fundamental view of life,” Rand explains, "is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art."" Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (pgs 57-58) "She thus draws a crucial distinction between estetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. Whether one shares or does not share an artist's fundamental view of life, Rand explains, " is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art."" ---------------- There's probably more in this article, but this one was easy to locate. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. A small correction to add the coauthor Michelle Marder Kamhi has been made since this post is being used as a reference link.)

Thanks again to Ellen and Michael for correcting the Rand quote. --Dan Edge

Ellen, Thanks for the correction. I copied that quote from another website that quoted the same section from ITOE and provided that page number as a reference. Apparently it was misquoted. Thanks, --Dan Edge

Victor Pross, QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe "This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary. Consider one quantum stance: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is traveling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them. It is not observation---nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, 'mindless' interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart! " Author Unknown, Subjectivism, Reality, and Quantum Physics "Such claims betray a remarkable failure of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured. They have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary, not primary. Consider one quantum queerness: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is travelling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them. Nor does the existence of trees on deserted islands! It is not the act of observation, nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, mindless interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!" -------------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

My apologies to Torres. --Dan Edge

Victor Pross, Great writers! Was Ayn Rand and George Orwell on the same page? "GEORGE ORWELL and 1984: 1. It is the nature of the state to be at a continual state of war; if there is no enemy, the state will make one. 2. Increasing development of technology lends itself to better control by the government, i.e., Big Brother. 3. Revision of history is very effective in controlling the minds of the people. 4. Another method of control is through the monitoring and scheduling of sexual intercourse. 5. Giving the people something on which to focus their hate distracting them from what the government's doing to them. 6. When all other methods of control fail, brainwashing through pain and mind-altering drugs is always an easy option. 7. Utopian societies aren't always idealistic, and even in supposedly perfect socialistic societies, there are divisions in classes: top order, middle class, proletariat. AYN RAND and Atlas Shrugged: 1. The independent mind -- through the freedom of the society in which it resides -- is responsible for all human progress and prosperity. 2. State control of the economy leads to corruption and greater taxes. 3. Also, the purpose of government is to protect the sovereign rights of an individual (see US Declaration of Independence). 4. Man increases knowledge through reason, and reason alone. 5. Capitalism is an idea which must be strived for, through a laissez-faire economy. 6. Man and his mind should be free from the control of any outside party, especially the state; natural rights and laws do exist: a man has a right to live his own life. 7. In a last-ditch attempt to be free, independent minds will withdraw from society and become secluded, therefore no longer contributing--shown through the metaphor of the strike. 8. Self-sacrifice (altruism) is evil and improper for mankind as an ethical ideal. " "pcj", forum comment on Beaver and Stone "I'll start with the one I like and am thus more familiar with. 1984 discusses: 1. It is the nature of the state to be at a perpetual state of war; if there is no enemy, the state will make one. 2. The proletariat/individual and its well-being is more important than the government/collective and its well-being. 3. Increasing development of technology lends itself to better control by the government, i.e., Big Brother. 4. Revision of history is very effective in controlling the minds of the people. 5. Another method of control is through the monitoring and scheduling of sexual intercourse. 6. Giving the people something on which to focus their hate away from the government is also useful in distracting them from what the government's doing to them. 7. When all other methods of control fail, brainwashing through pain and mind-altering drugs is always an easy option. 8. Utopian societies aren't always idealistic, and 9. even in supposedly perfect socialistic societies, there are divisions in classes: top order, middle class, proletariat. Rand's usual points are: 1. Even when all odds are against the happenstance, an individual can overcome a state, and 2. The independent mind through the freedom of the society in which it resides is responsible for all human progress and prosperity; 3. State control of the economy leads to corruption and greater taxes, shown through an end to American prosperity. 4. Also, the purpose of government is to protect the sovereign rights of an individual (see US Declaration of Independence as well as some of Montesquieu's works). 5. Man gains knowledge through reason, and reason alone. 6. Capitalism is an idea which must be strived for, through a laissez-faire economy. 7. Man and his mind should be free from the control of any outside party, especially the state; natural rights and laws do exist: a man has a right to live his own life. 8. In a last-ditch attempt to be free, independent minds will withdraw from society and become secluded, therefore no longer contributing, shown through the extended metaphor of the strike. 9. Self-sacrifice is useless. " ----------------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Art: Who Needs It? "Some thirty to forty thousand years, human beings began making images in caves, as discovered in Southern France, and in other widely scattered areas of the world. The earliest confirmed musical instrument dates from this period as well, as does recently found stone sculptures. By this point our early ancestors were probably also telling stories as they clustered around fires against the Ice Age chill, stories of brave hunts and bitter winters, tales of gods and tribal heroes. It is not being said that Early man had the concept "art"--but rather that human beings engaged in these activities and that they served the same primary psychological function as they have ever since: that of integrating and objectifying experience in an emotionally meaningful way. By the time the first civilizations emerged in Egypt, the Indus River, China, art was a well-established part of human life. Virtually every culture, at every period, has had some form of painting, sculpture, poetry, epic narrative, music, and dance. " David Kelley, Art and Ideals "Some thirty to forty thousand years ago, human beings began making images in caves like Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc in southern France and in other, widely scattered areas of the world. The earliest confirmed musical instrument dates from this period as well, as does a recently found stone sculpture. By this point our early ancestors were probably also telling stories as they huddled around fires against the Ice Age chill—stories of glorious hunts and hard winters, tales of gods and tribal heroes. By the time the first civilizations emerged in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus River, China, and the Americas, art was a well-established part of human life. Virtually every culture, at every period, has had some form of painting, sculpture, poetry, epic narrative, music, and dance." ------------------ Victor Pross, Art: Who Needs It? "Why did human beings engage in these activities? Unlike tools for hunting, cooking, building, scraping animal skins, and the like, these artefacts have no clear survival value. Why did people, whose daily life was a dire struggle for substance and whose life expectancy was probably less than twenty years, spend time and energy making instruments to produce rhythmic, tonal sounds? Why did they invent stories? Why did they paint representational depictions on caves? What was the purpose of these activities? What needs did they satisfy? Did they serve life? Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development---the emergence of a spiritual capacity in our species, the final stage in the evolution of the human mind. Of course, Rand agreed with this summation: Art does satisfy needs that arise from our unique capacity: the ability to think in abstractions. " David Kelley, Art and Ideals "Why did humans begin doing this sort of thing? Unlike tools for hunting, cooking, building, scraping animal skins, and the like, these artifacts have no clear survival value. Why did people whose daily life was a struggle for subsistence and whose life expectancy was probably less than twenty years spend time and energy making two-dimensional images in dark places? Why did they spend time and energy making instruments to produce rhythmic, tonal sounds? Why did they invent stories of things that never happened? What was the purpose of such activities? What needs did they satisfy? Why has art been such a pervasive feature of human life? Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development—the emergence of a spiritual capacity in our species, the final stage in the evolution of the human mind. Although that is a speculative thesis, it is a plausible one, for art does satisfy needs that arise from our unique cognitive capacity: the ability to think in abstractions." -------------------- Victor Pross, Art: Who Needs It? "To keep our abstractions tied to the world, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality---of the particulars." David Kelley, Art and Ideals "To keep our abstractions tied to the world, therefore, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality—of the particular." --------------------- Victor Pross, Art: Who Needs It? "Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal life and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, victories, and achievements." David Kelley, Art and Ideals "Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. Rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, seasons, victories, and achievements." ---------------------- --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

Victor Pross, Art and a Sense of Life "A WORK OF ART CANNOT BE PROPERLY EVALUTED AS “GOOD” OR “BAD” ON THE BASIS OF A SENSE OF LIFE RESPONSE. Why is this? Ayn Rand draws a crucial distinction between ESTHITIC RESPONSE and what she terms ESTEHTIC JUDGEMENT. The former is a spontaneous emotional reaction—-the latter is a function of intellectual appraisal. In this latter case, that is what some other poster suggested: his conclusion about Family Values was a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. [“Whether one shares or does not share an artist’s fundamental view of life,” Rand explains, “is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.”" Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (pgs 57-58) "A work of art cannot be properly evaluated as "good" or "bad" on the basis of a sense-of-life response. She thus draws a crucial distinction between estetic response (though she does not use that term) and what she terms esthetic judgment. The former is a spontaneous, emotional reaction to the work as a whole. The latter is a function of intellectual appraisal; it is a dispassionate evaluation of the success with which the artist projects his intended theme. Whether one shares or does not share an artist's fundamental view of life, Rand explains, " is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art."" ------------- Perhaps Mr. Torres [and Michelle Marder Kamhi] stole this from Mr. Pross. In any case, Mr. Torres will be notified. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Small corrections to add the coauthor Michelle Marder Kamhi have been made since this post is being used as a reference link. Also edited for gender error.)

Victor Pross, Replying to Examples of the Stolen Concept: "But existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product a supernatural realm. There is nothing antecedent to existence, noting apart from it---and no alternative to it." Peter Cresswell, A Sunday Morning Invitation: "...existence is a self-sufficient primary: it is not a product of a supernatural dimension or of a supernatural being or of anything else or anyone else. Existence is not a why, it's an is. Existence itself is simply all that exists -- there is nothing prior to it; nothing antecedent to it; nothing apart from it -- and no alternative to it." ------------------------ Victor Pross, Replying to Examples of the Stolen Concept: "Particularly since Kant, it as been said, the philosophical technique of concept stealing--of attempting to negate reason by means of reason--has become a general bromide, a gimmick worn transparently thin." Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Chptr 6, pg 61): "...particularly since Kant, the philosophical technique of concept stealing, of attempting to negate reason by means of reason, has become a general bromide, a gimmick worn transparently thin." ------------------------- I think you go to a special level of hell when you plagiarize Ayn Rand on a Rand-related message board. Michael, you risk much by allowing any of Pross's posts on Objectivist Living to stand, particularly those that contain plagiarism. As usual, I will notify the victims of Pross's plagiary, this time including Dr. Peikoff, who I believe owns the rights to ITOE. I realize that you are not aware of all of the individual instances of Pross's crimes, but in my opinion you are abetting his plagiary by leaving his posts up. --Dan Edge (Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. The small corrections Ellen mentioned in the Rand quote have been made since this post is being used for reference links.)

Greetings, I recently wrote an article criticizing 12 Step Programs that may interest some of you. In the article, I suggest an alternative to the 12 Step philosophy: Rational Recovery. If you haven't seen the Rational Recovery website, MSK, you should check it out. --Dan Edge