Steve Gagne

Endlessly within Objectivism, we as a group assert that corporations should be treated with respect to the rights of the individual. For example, a corporation should have the right to spend money on political campaigns because such a right is justified under personal property rights.

In reflecting on this consistent assertion that corporations are representative of personal property, what is consistently neglected is the fact that corporations are lawfully divorced from personal liability... corporations are "special."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business...

An important feature of corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[4]

If individuals can act through corporations in ways that protect the individual from liability concerning the actions of that corporation, then it is inconsistent to assert that corporate assets should be treated with respect to individual property rights. You cannot have personal property without personal liability. You cannot at once claim that corporate money is personal property but that corporate debt is not personal liability. If a man has the freedom to dispose of corporate money at his whim, he must also with his entire personal financials be liable for any debt incurred by that corporation.

Incorporation is a modern wonder and leads to much business creation, but strictly speaking - I believe it is unethical.

Christopher

Christopher

Merlin and I have crossed swords before on this topic -- I found his argument that I am some kind of an idiot really convincing -- so I have to say that simply, I tend to agree with you.

Reason why? A [limited liability] corporation is created by an act of a governmental authority, so corporate contributions to political campaigns means government-authorized interference in the electoral process. Within that context, restrictions on corporate contributions make sense. If we don't need the restrictions, why don't we just have government thugs tell us who to vote for, and beat us to death if we don't? Oh, that's right. We don't need to. We got Diebold rigging the freakin' elections by reprogramming the voting machines. The vote turns out the way they're bought anyway.

Michael, I have kidded, quoted, elucidated, insulted, and cajoled anyone who claims to be “for Anarchism,” yet I have yet to get a description, let alone a definition of Anarchism, that includes just a few more details than no government, arbitration of disputes, free markets, and competing defense agencies.

Describe a workable society. Until you can do that, you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually, Peter, there is a historical record that describes an anarcho-capitalist society that survived for over 200 years, from c.1200 B.C.E. to c.1000 B.C.E.

We know this society by the name of Ancient Israel, and the record of the rise and fall of this society is recorded in the Holy Bible, specifically in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and First & Second Samuel.

Don't give me any anti-theistic crap about contradictions or magical stories; the archaeological evidence for these historical records may be thin, but in no wise contradicts them. You know full well that what falsehoods you may think you have found are totally irrelevant to the truth, if that is what you are actually seeking, so if you were to actually read it with an eye to the truth rather than trying to discredit your source, you might actually learn something from it.

I can't think of anything Sellers did that wasn't great.

My sister and I still get the giggles about the scene at a hotel. A small dog comes up next to Sellers (Clouseau? I don't remember). Another man walks up to the counter, and seeing the small dog says, "Does your dog bite?" Sellers responds "Non!" So the other man bends down to pet the dog. The dog goes berserk, practically tearing the man's arm off. The man screams, "I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!!!" A bemused Sellers calmly responds, "That is not my dog."

If Judaism is compatible with Capitalism, why can't Christianity be compatible with Capitalism?

Because Christian teachings very specifically reject materialism. A very famous example from the Gospels:

Mark 10:17-24 (New International Version)

The Rich Young Man

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24 [Note: Also Luke 16:13]

Now, there are writers who called themselves Christian who wrote favorably of capitalism, Max Weber being a famous example. Weber's views came out the Protestant Reformation, which did a great deal to create an individualistic, materialist version of Christianity that did tremendous good for the Western world. In its origins, however, Christianity is a collectivist, anti-capitalist philosophy.

Christianity does not, as a matter of principle, "reject materialism" per se, but "transience" (as opposed to "the eternal"). [Note: or the "instance" as opposed to the "universal".]

As far as your Bible quote goes: man, that NIV is such a crummy translation. (Not many out there much better, though.) A more complete quote of that scene might read

...And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"

And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."

Peter began to say to him, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you." Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life . (Mk.10:17-30)

You see, there is not only a claim made on the disciples' devotions, but also a direct appeal to their own inherent greed, much in the sense of a quid pro quo, i.e., a trade. But there are conditions. One of which is they recognize that they must approach it in an attitude of prayer, i.e., on their knees, much as does a camel which must pass through "The Eye of the Needle", the then-current colloquial name of a particularly low-clearance gate in the north wall of Jerusalem. But note that the passage begins by stating the man fell to his knees -- he already inherently "knew" and "did" what was "required", but never even realized it. Sad and painful.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt.23:37)

Further, I suppose you've never heard of the hermeneutics of divine irony. Look at Luke 16: "Make friends by means of unrighteous Mammon, so that, when it fails, you may be welcomed into their eternal habitations...They have Moses and the prophets -- let them listen to them. If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not believe, even if one should rise from the dead." Then consider that the poor rich dude who was told to give everything away was looking for the wrong thing. He was looking for a materialistic action of transient ritual obligation like unto the hypocritical Pharasites, instead of the permanent spiritual value of eliminating hypocrisy, so Jesus gave him the (ahem) "appropriate" answer. As is recorded elsewhere

Jesus said: Know what is before thy face, and what is hidden from thee shall be revealed unto thee; for there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest. His disciples asked him and said unto him: Wilt thou that we fast? And how shall we pray? Shall we give alms? And what rules shall we observe in eating?

Jesus said: Do not lie; and that which you hate, do not do. For all things are revealed before heaven. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be manifest, and there is nothing covered which shall remain without being uncovered...If you fast, you will beget a sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do an evil to your spirits. And if you go into any land and travel in its regions, if they receive you, eat what they set before you. Heal the sick among them. For that which goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which comes forth from your mouth, that is what will defile you.

Jesus said to them: When you make...the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and what is above to be below...then shall you enter the kingdom...If those who lead you say unto you: Behold, the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will enter before you. If they say unto you: It is in the sea, then the fish will enter before you. But the Kingdom is within you, and without you. When you know yourselves, then shall you be known, and you shall know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if ye do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are that poverty...He who knows the All but fails to know himself lacks everything. (Tho.5-6,14,22b,3,67)

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mk.8:36)

Although presented as revelation, much of the wisdom in these passages can be derived by one's own independent thinking, and its artistic forms can be used to summarize -- IOW revelation does not need rational explanation per se, although one's understanding of it does. But to dispute over the words rather than the thoughts is pretty foolish.

So to answer Bob's concern, no, Christianity is not directly incompatible with Capitalism (though many people's applications of each can be).

Warum sagst du "Only in America"? This product is eligible for shipping internationally too.

The customer comments are some of the funniest I've seen, great share Bob.

Amazon.Com is an American firm. Where else in the world would such an item be marketed online?

Ba'al Chatzaf

???

The "novelty" of this ad totally escapes me. (Still have several packages of 'em, along w/the hardware, leftover from my days as a 3rd day pastor.)

Funny comments, though.

A set (as used on this thread) is a mathematical concept. Conversely, when we talk about classes (on this thread) we are talking about how the mind derives conceptual categorization and labels aspects of that categorization process.

Hope this is the response you're looking for.

Okay, I see why this is confusing to me. I don't use the term "set" as a strictly mathematical concept (and, and despite his background, I'm not sure Bob Kolker does either), but as a term to mean "any mental grouping of instances of pre-existing percepts or concepts". It is thus the basic unit of rational thought, and I suppose it is near-identical to your usage of the term "class".

But I can see why, if you regard it as solely a term limited to a specific field, you would regard its usage as irrelevant here.

As I stated earlier, to me the only distinction is connotative, and actually speaks to your concern about the categotization process. "Sets", the term with the merely descriptive connotation, can carry some sense of a seeming "randomness" concerning the collecting of percepts and concepts together, i.e., the integration process has not yet gotten to the stage of objective testing of integratives. Thus neither null sets nor single-instance sets can be excluded at this point. "Classes", on the other hand, seem to carry the normative connotation that some sort of objective testing and validation must have occurred before the conceptual unit is considered. So, does that require multiple instances? I don't know. We ARE talking about slightly different stages in the process, but still, the same multi-iterative process: perceive, isolate, identify, integrate, test, validate, iterate, act, a.k.a. concept formation, a.k.a. learning, a.k.a. induction.

So at what point do you see a "class" being formed, and why?

Chris, GS --

When Bob used the term "sets", I saw his point pretty clearly. (And I'm happy to be living on the Class-M planet Dirt.)

In earlier discussions I've pointed to "sets" of perceptions and experiences, probability, repeatability, and testability, as being the basis of learning and concept formation. A "set" is any envelope which one uses to integrate his percepts, as is "class". Beyond a slight difference in connotation ("set" would be descriptive; "class" would be normative), I do not understand the point of the discussion. Validity is not even part of either definition.

I see this discussion of "set" vs. "class" as being a distinction without a difference. So is this just a dispute about words? If not, please clarify.

Grax.

steve

Steve, buy lithium and buy oil; both will likely outperform gold, but buy gold too.

--Brant

Yes, but you still have to do your research, and check fundamentals. Last year, I got this "hot tip" concerning a uranium company. When I researched the fundamentals, I found that they were a money-burning machine, had no finds, were refusing to develop their properties in colorado and wyoming (selling them off instead), were insisting on continuing mining operations in texas where they hadn't found a single gram of uranium since they started seven years ago, and were partnering with an australian company (to give u.s. citizen presence) for a really low-yield unprofitable mine in new mexico. A total money-loser from day one. There's plenty of those in water, lithium, vanadium, oil, and gold companies too. So you've got to be careful, know what to look for, and know how to find it.

P.S.Edit: Of course, that "hot tip" may yet turn out to be right, if the government decides to put in some sort of "anti-dog-eat-dog rule" in the energy sector. [sarcasm]I'm sure we would all want to profit from that.[/sarcasm]

Brant

XOM may be a good bet (not yet sure myself on that), but some other things ought to be taken into consideration:

It takes 4-5 barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil. (Thus Saudi Arabia halted grain agriculture 2 years ago to bolster their declining oil production.)

Ninety-seven percent of fresh water is locked up in polar ice caps; the remaining 3% is being overtaxed and underprotected. There are near-drought conditions in both developed and developing oil production regions. So fresh water demand is going to skyrocket in the next ten years. It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to perform sea water desalinization -- we'll need 500 power plants immediately, and 1200 in the next ten years to power the needed desalinization -- so energy needs are going to skyrocket as well. (Water needs cheap energy; energy needs cheap water.)

This means that companies involved in water purification and distribution are a pretty sure bet, as well as companies providing non-petroleum-based energy sources.

The latter includes the usual round up of suspects (coal, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal), but it should be noted that the technological focus for the near term is an outgrowth of the hybrid/electric automobile, i.e., battery power. Right now, lithium-ion technology is the economic technology, which has made portable electronics a viable industry. But with the aging of the national auto fleet and its replacement by hybrid/electric vehicles, each vehicle requiring more than 1000 times as much lithium as a portable electronic device, the worlds supplies of lithium (currently controlled by the Chinese) could easily be consumed, or curtailed by protectionism. A newer battery technology, lithium-vanadium stands to become the next viable portable energy alternative, but again, much of the world's vanadium supplies are controlled by the Chinese.

So, moves in companies involved in vanadium and other "technology metals" should also be good investments.

I'm still researching these things, so I don't have many company names to recommend yet, but I am looking for the fundamentals in a few companies: one is a water pump part manufacturer, two are oil producers in North Dakota ("The Bakken"), three are mining concerns concentrating in Indonesia, Malawi, and Greenland, and one is a battery manufacturer.

I'm also trying to find out what happened to the Green River Valley. Under contract from the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior), EGL Resources had developed an in-situ drilling technology, with no strip mining, completely pollution-free, that far outstripped the capabilities of the techniques previously developed by Royal Dutch Shell. EGL was ready for their independent in-situ shale oil drilling operation over 4 years ago, and Congress was supposed to help get the demo project up to the point of a limited commercial operation by this past year. But EGL sold out to IDT in February of 2008 and I haven't heard of anything else from them since. President Obama even mentioned it once in one of his speeches back in March 2009, but that was quickly stifled.

Happy New Year Adam!

Chris --

Happy New Year to you, and to all on OL.

steve

Tal

Que Debe Hacer Lo Recto El Hombre

Aquella noche vivímos, se respiraba amor nuevo,

Tal secreto, tal susurro, tal suspiro.

Tiemblo de pensar en tu tocarme,

Tal secreto es todo para tal como soy:

Qu'el amor que es todo hay que ser el amor compartido.

Almas apàsionados, bocas y cuerpos en llamas,

Tales hogueras laman a l'oscuridad por la noche.

Brillàmos al estrellado pa'arriba,

Tales angeles por los cielos, ¡ tales luces ! Màs...

En otras partes pertenecímos, qu'en nuestra nube compartida.

Y en sueños de la noche aún te estrecho,

Tal secreto, tal susurro, tal suspiro.

Sí a mi lado màs, no te quedaràs,

Tal secreto està derroche, ¡ tal lío !

Exactly how many people here are complaining about Xray's responses?

And exactly how many people here are continuing to sanction the inanities?

Just remember, she could be arguing in her spare time.

Mayhew also must have a high opinion of himself as compared to Rand, to so consistently think that HIS REWORDING is superior to Rand's original. It's interesting, reading through this thread (THANKS, ROBERT!) to see how often it is just a rewording with no major change in the logical content - - just a rephrasing. To what end?

Bill P

Actually, this is in the "finest tradition" of 19th century journalism. Journalists frequently "cleaned up" the language and delivery of inept populist politicians, making them appear to sound like statesman, at the expense of literal accuracy. Even now, there are at least four "original" copies of the Gettysburg Address, none of which agree with one another, let alone with what was published in the newspapers.

Jay --

Though much of my personal path has led in the opposite direction of yours, I always welcome one who can think independently and clearly. And please, do not denigrate your CompSci background as "limited" to technology. I believe you will find that your own understanding of information theory will stand you in good stead as you learn and share about some big topics around here, such as truth-value and certainty, learning, induction, concept formation, conceptual hierarchies, and the like. And, since you've also been reading NB's books, you may even discover that you already understand more about philosophy and psychology than you ever suspected.

So welcome, I look forward to engaging.

Vty

Steve

Deaths are reported. One source says quite a few, 5 documented.

Rebels attacking troops with rocks, ... Troops firing on rebels.

As you say, not much detail is emerging. It will.

Bill P

Photos of Iranian Protests

Las Dos Blancas

(para Arelis)

Siempre extraños, lo que pensé seríamos, Arelis

Hàsta que la Angela llevòmela tu dulcita voz, Arelis

À la màgia de tus ojos me volví cautivo el alma

Tuve quinze años de nuevo; ¡ qué tontito anhelo !

Dar à luz las esperanzas, y miedos nuevos tambien.

Un renácimiento: busqué un señal del Cielo.

Siempre amigos, me dijíste <<sola è exclusiva>>, Arelis

Hàsta que me hago digno, que darte las Perlas de la Virgen, Arelis

Qué Angelita Fièl! Susurro del aire, ¡ pa'ákà y pa'állà !

¡ Miré que asentóse por tus cabellos su hálo !

Traté de cogerla que descubrir à mi canto recondito.

Las Dos Rosas Blancas declaronte calladas de hallarla en tí.

¡ Ay Mujer !

Veinte años que dormí, tu nombre fue la ascua de mis sueños,

Y yo, sin saberla ni importarme ya vida podríamos compartir.

Despertèsme al abrazo de tus fuegos, y nunca te puedo dejar --

¡ Pa'tí me ardo mas ahora que en el día que me echáste por tierra !

Siempre contigo, Ojàla que estaré pa'állà yo, Arelis

El Señor responde al rezo, ¿ ha de réplicar Él que <<No>> ?

Somehow I want to add "anymore" as the last word.

I was in Macy's today... I saw a bunch of women walking around in burkas...doing Christmas shopping.....

And as a side issue, does subjectivity even exist?

OOPS.

It seems the text IS at the linked page, but it lacks the introduction that is in the book download. Sorry, Michael.

steve

Michael --

Interesting.

Your link doesn't point directly to it, what it shows is a page dedicated to defending the 9 people who wrote it from French government prosecution (for supposed "terrorism").

Here is the link for the PDF file for printing the book itself. Strange little concoction, the first 7 pages consist of "we're mad as hell and we won't take it anymore" (with appropriate connotations from "Network"), then it switches gears to being the supposed "new communist manifesto", with this comment:

When all is said and done, it’s with an entire anthropology that we are at war. With the very idea of man.

Now, I was listening up to that point, but with that, I really have to stop. Someone else is going to have to do the heavy lifting on this one.

steve

forwarded to me from my best friend:

I was not sure which way some of you would want this message so I am sending it 2 ways and you select what fits you best.

To all my Democratic friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To all my Republican & Libertarian friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

What does any of this bickering have to do with Bill's original question about 'the current status of the work in progress by Thomas and Kelley, "The Logical Structure of Objectivism?"'

If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology.

No. Apparently you missed the part where I said that one can only get so far "by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand." Rearden and Wyatt were not resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that they didn't understand.

No, I got the part about the resentful attitude &c. It's just that I haven't engaged with Robert in any venue where he has acted that way toward me. That's why I asked if you two had a history. Where did he actually act that way? Where & how was he resentful, dismissive, rejecting misunderstood complex concepts, resisting education, and so on?

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own."

I'm not opposed to experimentation.

OK. It's just that an objective sentence diagram of your statement in English would show that you had said:

one doesn't become very knowledgeable...by...experimenting on one's own.

[GODMODE ON] Is that how you intended to play? Is that what you intended to say? If so, how is that a statement that is "not opposed to experimentation"? And if not, what was your intention? (Embedded Game Cheat -- GODMODE allows you infinite do-overs)

No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation.

Are you saying that you think that Robert is a trailblazer in the visual arts -- that he's discovering things that no one has known or done before?

Naaah. What he is doing is creating art by his own vision, which no one else could or can do for him, and having the balls to actually put it out there and let the market decide what to do about it. A little different than my becoming an Ellsworth Toohey-style armchair critic and stating what I think of the quality of his art. Of course if I did that latter thing, I wouldn't be speculating on his attitudes or education, just on the quality of his work, stating whether I intended to buy any of it. (You gotta admit, his take on jackson pollock is hilarious.)

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

So, how would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others?

In this discussion, it appears to me that you have missed several references to key expressions, at least once with Robert, and twice with me. And because of the ensuing misunderstanding, I now find you are misapplying my words to a wrong situation. (IOW, the answer to your question is "Not Applicable.") Perhaps -- shall I taunt you again -- for not checking the links first, or shall I unrepentantly rail at you for your craumzoyl attitude?

Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being

(1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not

I didn't say that Robert was an ignorant fool. I said that he's not very knowledgeable of visual art and music.

OK, I still don't know what your objective basis is for that statement. "Not knowledgeable" and "ignorant" are pretty close synonyms. And if someone insists upon forcefully expressing an opinion without an objective basis, I'm willing to venture a guess here that you would consider that person a "fool". So "ignorant fool" is really just the simplest form of expressing what is, after all, your own opinion. It still sounds to me like a taunt I might hear on Friday Night Smackdown. "Them's fightin' words, boy."

(2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore

I've said nothing about producing "proper art." I've simply said that Robert's art and his comments reveal that there is much that he doesn't know about art.

Earlier, you had said

..."I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning....

I can certainly understand why you would object to someone throwing that kind of garbage in your face, and further, can envision it occurring with a supercilious sneer, and his expecting you to "deal with it". But I did not see this comment posted here and do not understand where you are getting it from. Is this a direct quote from him that I missed from somewhere, or are you just imputing this attitude to him, as I did to you with the "ignorant fool" statement?

But beyond that, you damn his work with faint praise ("It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) "), then claim that you are not doing so, saying

In fact, I think that your lack of knowledge even extends to compositional theories and techniques that you'd agree with if you knew anything about them, and not just the modernist ideas that you've decided to reject prior to understanding them -- I don't think that you understand things like basic color theory, perspective, proportion, etc., let alone more complex ideas which depend on knowledge of those things.

But you now insist that this is not a condemnation of his work, but state that he, Robert, the "ignorant fool" is not capable of producing art according to your ideas because he doesn't know what these rules for proper art are, nor does he have any basis or capability for learning these rules.

(3) Robert should do whatever I tell him.

No, the point is that Robert's criteria for judging what qualifies or fails to qualify as art are not objective, consistent or informed.

So your point is not that you demand he go back to school, which is what you had actually talked about, but that he start using objective criteria for his judgments. Good. You're finally getting around to the point. En buenahora. Please elaborate.

And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.*

My point has nothing to do with telling Robert how to go about producing art. I'm not being critical of his art, but of his ideas, of his methods of classification, and of his qualifications to comment on the subjects that he's commenting on. My primary criticism is that his standard of judging what qualifies as art is highly subjective. His personal emotions are his standard, and yet he rejects the idea of others' emotions serving as their standard.

Why is so upsetting to you that I expect people in Objectivist forums who discuss art to have objective, consistent, and informed standards for determining what is or isn't art?

J

Jonathan, it may not have been your intent to try to tell Robert what to do, but I would be hard put to prove that assertion by the content of your earlier posts. I would like to know what "ideas" and "methods of classification" he has used that you have judged invalid, where and how he expressed such, and what "qualifications" you demand of a creative artist. Then I would be interested in knowing what superior "ideas" and "methods of classification" you use, as well as your qualifications as a non-artist to judge the work of a creative artist.

It doesn't upset me in the least for a general expectation of objectivity to obtain here; what I find peculiar is the demand coming from someone who is not yet demonstrating it himself.

Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it.

My point is that he should consider studying art.

See, my view is that art is a lot like any other field. One doesn't become very knowledgeable of it simply by drawing, just as one doesn't become very knowledgeable of, say, physics by mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own. There's only so far one can get by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand. "I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning.

If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology.

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own." No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation. (Anyone who tries to pull a bunch of atheist-chic on me right now for that last comment is debating the wrong questions.*)

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

BTW, do you two have a history? I ask because I can't find any evidence for the type of Luddite attitudes ("while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand" or ones that aren't "a very effective approach to learning") that you impute to Robert (anonrobt, not Bob, Ba'al Chatzaf).

You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own.

It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) [how magnanimous of you], but of recognizing -- by looking at his art and reading his opinions -- that he's lacking a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that he appears to be very resistant to learning.

J

Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being

(1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not

(2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore

(3) Robert should do whatever I tell him.

And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.*

But what o' that.

steve

*Comment edited with a machete.