Matus1976

Most of this discussion has focused on this point, Kant does not seem to be talking about the effects of viewing some phenomenon in nature, he seems to be explicitly saying that this should not be something that you are 'viewing' I suppose it all focuses on what he means here: So, again, he seems to be saying here that the sublime is a capacity of thinking which is evidence of some 'faculty of mind' (some ability of the persons mind) to 'transcend every standard of sense' By sense, does he mean 'that which is sensible' or a 'sense of perception' (eyes, ears, etc) Either way the interpretation seems bad, if he means 'sensible' than the sublime is a function of the ability of a persons mind to 'transcend the sensible' (i.e. enterain non-sensical thoughts, i.e. thoughts disconnected in every way from reality) this seems to be a metaphysical foundation for the sublime (or the rejection of metaphysics as the foundation for the sublime) where the other interpretation means that he is 'transcending' our ability to percieve reality, which, again, is a disconnection from from physical reality. What do you suggest he means by 'transcending every standard of sense' ? The difference between an immediate reaction of awe, and a reaction of awe due to contemplation is only one of the degree of integrated values. The values which cause the awe are the same, in one person, they might only be newly learning of the ideas that would incur this awe, in another, they may have studied the relevant things thier whole life and thus immediately respond with a reaction of awe. Unless you are saying (or Kant is saying) that this sublime reaction is a reaction to something intrinsic or an 'instinct' which the 'sublime' is supposed to tap into, and is thus universal among normal humans and is automatically awe inspiring in all people. Your comments do seem to suggest this, if so, Kant is a proponent then of the naturalistic fallacy (that something is of higher value merely because humans 'naturally' have it) if this is the only ‘proper’ kind of ‘sublime’ this then implies some supernatural or mystical quality to the evolutionary process which has resulted in that stunning and horrified reaction to views of grand scale, or It's nothing more than argumentum ad evolution. And yet Kant suggests we can feel the sublime at a work of art, so either that art triggers the evolutionary sublime response (which even a feral human should experience) or his criteria for the sublime is completely arbitrary. In other words, Kant's idea of the sublime is absolute greatness, and that our experiences in observing phenomena which, although not absolutely great themselves, instill fear and are beyond comprehension, and thus stimulate a sense of that absolute greatness. In some ways you could say that his concept of the "absolute" aspect of the greatness of the sublime sounds similar to your concept of "the highest form of beauty that can be recognized," with the difference being that you haven't explained, or even begun to define, what you mean by "beauty" or the "highest form" of it. Is your concept of the "highest form of beauty" embodied in something which exists right now in reality, something which is so beautiful that its beauty could not possibly be surpassed, or is your ideal "highest form of beauty" only an idea in your mind which is "detached" from reality since it is embodied in no actual object? Ok I need to run this through babel fish to translate Kantianism into normal human language. Kant - "Everything that provokes this feeling in us, including the might of nature which challenges our strength, is then, though improperly, called sublime…” Translation - "Everything that makes us feel sublime is called sublime, though sometimes improperly. Comment - ok, what things are improperly called sublime that yet still incur the feeling of the sublime – this implies a ‘right’ kind of sublime, and a ‘wrong’ kind of sublime. Kant – “and it is only under presupposition of this idea within us, and in relation to it, that we are capable of attaining to the idea of the sublimity of that Being Which inspires deep respect within us” Translation - “And it is only after we assume before hand that this idea of the sublime is all ready in us that in relation to that idea we are capable of feeling sublime about things which inspire deep respect in us” Comment - so it is only after we have an idea of the sublime that we can actually feel that something is sublime, this seems contradictory to the first statement, and to the implied naturalistic interpretation above. If the sublime requires the idea of sublimity being explicit in the subjects head, than it follows that at some point the idea must be integrated, and before that one might experience ‘sublimity’ after only some contemplation, and after that, immediately. It is also, again, suggesting that there are things which it is proper to feel sublime about and things that it is improper to feel sublime about. Kant – “not by the mere display of its might in nature, but more by the faculty which is planted in us of estimating that might without fear, and of regarding our estate as exalted above it." Translation – “[These things inspire deep respect] not by the display of their might in nature, but more by the capacity of our mind ‘planted’ in us which enables that estimation of that might WITHOUT fear, and as of regarding our self as exalted above it.” Comment - Ok, so here is says that the sublime enables the estimation of might WITHOUT fear, so why are you arguing that to Kant the sublime requires fear? He seems to me, as far as anything Kant says can actually make sense, to be saying that the sublime is inspired feeling of deep respect or awe at these big mighty things in a mind which is capable of understanding that big mightiness explicitly WITHOUT fear, and then considering our own state or self (estate?) as exalted above it. If Kant is arguing that FEAR is an explicit component of the Sublime (it seems to be the previous writers / explorers of the alps that said that) and that fear can only come from great and tremendous things of might in front of nature (which to me suggests cragged mountain ranges) then I can see why you would disavow Kant’s relationship to the acceptance of post modern art. However, these passages don’t seem to support “fear” as a component of the sublime in Kant, and combined with his other comments, still point toward an intense feeling of internal elation in regards to the reaction of gazin on a work of art which the genius that made it could not understand and the viewer themselves could make no sense of. I haven't claimed that there is an absolute "'this is sublime' rule of the universe." You've only interpreted me as doing so, much as you erroneously interpreted Janson as misrepresenting Burke. You said If the aesthetic feeling of the sublime is not artificially induced, then what is it? It’s either naturally induced, or supernaturally induced. If it’s naturally induced, I assume then you are referring to natural instinctual emotional response to given stimuli and not the reaction to stimuli based on your own ideas and values. If you mean it is supernaturally induced, and that no individual man has any control over it, and man has no volitional capacity in relation to feeling the sublime. Since Kant later says the sublime requires an idea of the sublime to be incorporated mentally, this does not seem to follow with Kan’t own suggestion. But Kant’s whole premise is that there are things which it is right to feel sublime about which comes from I agree. When I said that a person doesn't "choose to experience something which is non-sublime as sublime by trying to coax complexity out of it," I meant a thing which was non-sublime to him prior to his trying to coax complexity out of it. You can’t have it both ways. Does the subject himself choose what is sublime? (by choosing to integrate particular values and ideas throughout life) Or is that which is sublime determined by everything but the subject? (his nature, the universe, social standards, some mystical entity, etc) …The names used to describe the problem are irrelevant, so, to me, it seems that you are the one preaching what he thinks the sublime "OUGHT to be." It seems that you want to own and protect the word "sublime" and claim that your definition of it is the one and only proper definition, while having no interest in the substance of the problems that the philosophers were interested in. I’ve said all along that “art” can mean anything you want it to mean, I’ll say the same for sublime, but if you want it to be useful, or have any significance as an idea beyond just being a word, then the emotional reaction of the sublime experience absolutely ought to come from recognizing the highest and most amazingly profoundly beautiful thing to man which implicitly comes from the recognition that man is real and exists in knowable objective reality. The emotional reaction of the sublime is one of the highest emotional feelings a human being can have, and like love or hate, it should come only from the recognition and reaction to the singular most important things to that individual qua man and to man qua man in an objective reality, it should not come from inward contemplation, or blank eyed stairs at the intellectual vomit which is modern art. I’d say she has some mental problems if she experiences pleasure at experiencing horror and incomprehension. This id say is stronger evidence than anything else at the corruption’s Kant has infused society with if you attribute this to him. I'm still in the process of reading Kant, but I think his concept of Genius, and the idea that great art can't be reliably reproduced according to rules, has to do with the idea of originality being a vital aspect of art. Originality is not sufficient to make good art, originality has no value of it’s own. I could take toilet paper, gold glitter, and lead shot put them in a jar, turn it sideways, and balance on a beam with a large pig fetus on the other end. I guarantee it’s never been done before, but that doesn’t make it good art. He quote seems quite clear to me. Do you think that Michelangelo, or Leonardo Da Vinci do not have the ‘power to invent the like at pleasure, or methodically’ I’d bet Da Vinci could reproduce the Mona Lisa to 99% accuracy, and I highly doubt that Jackson Pollack could do the same with one of his works. Rand explicitly talks about this as a manifestation of the mind body dichotomy integrated fully within the artist in “The Art of Fiction” where she discusses this sort of ‘divine inspiration’ idea at length in regards to writing fiction, and thoroughly destroys it as an irrational abdication of individual talent. This effect, which is manifested in any expert behavior is routinely clinically identified in chess experts and has been studied thoroughly (look at some of the threads I’ve posted in on “talent” and “genius” here and at Objectivismonline.net) it is in effect a long term memory chunking effect where the rules of the art you are practicing are integrated so fully into your long term memory that they can be accessed with little conscious processing. Chess grand masters, for instance, can remember a randomized chess board no better than an average player. But chess boards which would appear random to a non-player but are actually the result of specific real movies are easily and readily repeatable by chess grand masters, who though they don’t exactly know how they remember all these boards, have actually integrated a sort of algorithm which relates each board and style of movies with minor variations. The same goes for expert musicians, sports players, artists, or technical craftsman. There is nothing mystical about it. Where did you get the idea that I was talking about modern usage of the word "sublime"? We're talking about Kant and other thinkers from long ago, and of their discussions of the sublime. It would be idiotic to expect that they would use a modern layman's definition rather than the definition used by philosophers (and not laymen) of their time. You were the one that generalized about the opinions on the definition of philosophers and the sublime, I was pointing out it has changed significantly over time. Do you grasp that the 17th and 18th century thinkers were concerned with trying to understand and explain something that they experienced? They witnessed things in reality, felt a sense of terror and of being overwhelmed, yet they also felt immense pleasure in experiencing the terror and incomprehension. They simply wanted to know why something which evokes a sense of horror causes an immense sense of satisfaction and pleasure. Do you have any ideas to explain such an aesthetic effect, other than that they were evil (and trying to despoil your precious word "sublime")? Do you have a better theory than those that they offered? I think the 17th and 18th century thinkers and explorer embraced an entirely different mental paradigm about Nature (where any mis step could produce a painful death) which we are rather removed from this now. I don’t conceptually understand that transformation of sublime from great rhetoric, then reverence or royalty in it’s classical usage to simultaneous terror and pleasure, but that does not seem to be what Kant was considering sublime to be. He seemed to be moving away from the definition they used and instead focused on the feeling absent of external influences. Where exactly are you getting his focus on horror / terror in the sublime from, looking at these earlier quotes I see. Strenous effort is sublime, nothing about terror at magnitude here. The sublime transcends sense. The sublime is only possible through the MEDIATION of DISPLEASURE Even your additional quote above Suggests that as well, it is the faculty of recognizing might without fear. These Kant quotes seem to suggest that that great art is that which incurs the sublime as well, so where does the terror fit into that idea?

Michael (Matus), Stepping away from Kant a second, I have trouble with this kind of dismissal and mocking that goes with it. That's a lot of shoulding. (As Barbara once mentioned, despite her differences with Dr. Albert Ellis, she saw a sign in his office she loved. It said, Don't should on me." See here.) The problem is that our inner mental states exist and they can become independent objects of our observation. Just as we can look at our hand or leg, or even look in a mirror, and see what we see as separate things, we can also look at our mental processes and see all that as a separate thing. That is the true meaning of being aware of yourself—stepping back and taking a look-see, so to speak. People who promote the objections you present above usually dismiss our internal mental world as if it did not exist except as something arbitrary, and they use words like whim or feelings, etc., to describe it. I have difficulty in my communications with Michael Newberry precisely on this point and how this inner mental reality can be expressed as a subject of art and not just an attribute inputted to a physical thing from outside it. (Volition-based input on the subject of an artwork is called theme and style.) I don't disagree on the reality and tangible nature of our mental states, if I am understanding you here properly. I recall a previous post in this thread in which you described an artist trying to capture and represent an inner emotional state, which I found a reasonable thing for an artist to try to capture, but that harkens back to the point and usefulness of art. Any representation of an inner emotional state, unless based on objective grounds (i.e. things that any rational human can connect to) is merely a tool for reflection for the artist and nothing more than a Rosarch ink blot test for the viewer. So I would wonder would an artist who is legitatemely trying to capture an inner emotional state for his own purposes cares if it's called art, or if it's hung on a wall? This kind of art, when reduced to subjective language of the artist, is indistinguishable to everyone but the artist from any random non-objective work presented by every other post modern artist.

You should work out your idea of the sublime then, because that's almost identical to what you said in post 209 Kant wrote If you have other Kant quotes on what he means by "sublime" feel free to share them. But there is no 'coaxing' going on, the complexity of the interactions related to a tumbling trash bag in the wind ARE immense and incomprehensible, they are not imaginary. Attempting to contemplate them can certainly drive a mind into a state which 'transcends every standard of sense' And of course you are wading into mystical territory here, insisting that the sublime is not something you can feel at the 'non-sublime'. There is no absolute 'this is sublime' rule of the universe, and 'this is not sublime' where sentient beings are supposed to appropriately feel the sublime in reaction to those. Who determines what is and is not sublime? The subject himself does, like any other emotion, because of the values they have chosen throughout life, the extent with which they are intergrated, and what he percieves and then understands about what he is experiencing. The emotional reaction, sublime or not, comes in reaction to what the subject thinks is sublime, not what Kant thinks is sublime, or what the 'universe' thinks is sublime. Kant is saying what he thinks sublime IS, but in reality is preaching what he thinks it OUGHT to be. If the word "sublime" (like Art) is to have any useful or significant meaning, it should not be something that means an overwhelming sense of grandeur, reverence, terror, or whatever ever at the incomprehensible detached from physical reality, because then it is a purely internalized emotion and is experienced for it's own sake and serves no purpose, and the word and idea become meaningless. Curl up in the fetal position, roll around on your floor and look 'inward' until you experience your sublime moment. If the sublime, to you, is "that which has profound meaning and is the highest form of beauty that can be recognized," which word would you propose that we use for the experience of delightful horror and infinite immensity in which all thought is lost, as described by the thinkers that you linked to? The opposite of Sublime. In Chemistry, the opposite of Sublimation is Deposition. "ah, that is so depositive" ? Or we could ad the greek prefix 'a' and call it asublime. don't know, don't particularly care to identify such a word at this moment. Where does Kant say that? His view is that the immensity of phenomena in reality engage our attention and stimulate the experience of the sublime. I've all ready quoted it a few times. Read his comments on Genuis (someone who creates something great but has no idea why or how he has and can not reliable reproduce it) and Fine Art (that which incurs the sublime where you have no idea why you feel it and is not according to any rules) and the Sublime, a feeling that 'transcends' all sense perception Did you read the information at the site? The thinkers who are quoted there discuss the delightful horror of the sublime, being mentally overwhelmed, and having their imaginations stimulated by it: <snip> Most of the thinkers quoted seem to see the sublime as something infinite, boundless/formless, horrific and beyond comprehension, and none of them seem to share your view that the sublime "is something which has profound meaning" -- the sublime, to them, is about emotional impact, bewilderment and strained mental efforts, not deep meaning. Yes I did read it, you apparently skimmed it looking only for the section that supports your interpretation. That site traced the HISTORY of the word and it's changing usage OVER TIME. If you think that, today, Sublime means something horrible and terrifying, you are disconnected from the modern english language. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sublime None of the modern definitions include anything pertaining to horror or terror, but they implicitly relate to a feeling associated with recognizing something in reality. The wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy) has a good history of Sublime as well. You are focusing on a particular era, prior to that, the sublime was the awe at great rhetorhic, and then it was nobility, then it was terror and beauty, then it was just the highest recognition of beauty or awe, as it seems to have settled on today. The modern usage of the word sublime is fine with me, an exalted or reverent feeling at experiencing or recognizing the highest or most beautiful thing once can concieve. The usage advocated by British explorers and writers of the 17th century, as you point out, one of terror and beauty, but yet still experienced at the recognition or reaction to something profoudnly beautiful and terrible, is fine as well, since it is grounded in reality. We just need a sufficient opposing term. Kant's usage is the worst and only useless one, since it focuses only on the FEELING and not the thing which caused the feeling.

I can't literally say what Kant would find "sublime" but a piece of tumbling garbage does in fact fit his (and your) criteria. If you literally try to comprehend the complexity of interactions going on that relate to a mere garbage bag blowing in the wind down the street (the intramolecular forces, the molecular thermodynamic motion, the ionization from ultraviolet light, formed from nuclear reactions inside the sun 90 billion miles away, the radioactive decay going on inside the carbon atoms the bag is composed of, the exchange of 'virtual particles' which constant the forces repelling atoms, the grand mountainous miscroscopic landscape of the surface it bounces upon, the random yet average pressures created by an unimaginable number of atoms in the air banging together and banging against the bag, some traveling many km/s, the reflection of light off the back and into our eyes, the cascading effect and the folding protiens in the eye which lead this to visual perception, the specular and glossy highlighting caused by uneven and even surfaces, etc etc etc, ) it quickly spirals into something nobody could truly wrap their head around, and is thus "sublime" by your standards, and removed from perceptual recognition or 'transcendant of sense' and seemingly sublime by Kant's standards. By your and his standards ANYTHING is SUBLIME if you think about it enough, and you have a decent scientific understanding of reality. To the rest of us, Sublime is not just incomprehensibility, it is something which has profound meaning and is the highest form of beauty we can recognize. Whether the reaction to the sublime was Joy or Pain according to Burke it was still based on a reaction to the recognition of something immense in reality using one's senses. Kant seems to explicitly say otherwise, that the sublime is devoid of any casual connection to recognizing something in reality. I'm quoteing Janson quoting Burke here, so if Janson's assessment of Burke's idea of the sublime is wrong - "that delicious sense of awe experienced before grandiose nature, as defined by Edmund Burke in Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful of 1756" - then take it up with him (or his estate) You can read a decent history of the word and idea of Sublime here - http://historyofideas.org/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-44

Nice stretch, but Kant and Janson clearly use "sublime" in different ways. Janson wrote: "soon joined by wilder scenes reflecting a taste for the sublime — that delicious sense of awe experienced before grandiose nature, as defined by Edmund Burke in Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful of 1756." Yet Kant used sublime in an entirely different way, from the quotes Newburry posted "The sublime is that, the mere capacity of thinking which evidences a faculty of mind transcending every standard of sense." In other words, To Burke and Janson, Sublime was the literal and explicit feel associated with the recognition of something objectively great or grandiose (e.g. the awe experienced before nature) To Kant, the sublime was the feeling associated with the recognition of something objectively great, but ONLY when it was felt for no particular reason the feeler could identify and only when EXPLICITLY disconnected from reality (i.e. transcending every standard of sense) Caught in the rapture and fascination of a piece of garbage tumbling down the street (like the 'most beautiful thing in the world' from "American Beauty") is "sublime" to Kant, caught in the immeasurable rapture of the Grand Canyon is sublime to rational people. "Sublime" was clearly a word in common usage in Kant's time, Kant took it and removed it's cause, and focused only on the effect. Just because they used the same word, doesnt mean they used in the same way. Prior to Kant, the sublime was an emotion one experienced on the precipice of the Alps, or staring through a microscope, it was the highest type of beauty. After Kant, the Sublime and the Beautiful were explicitly different things, the sublime was now something coming from the mental confusion of unintelligible 'poetry' or unintelligeble erratic blobs of ink.

The claim was not that we would not have non-objective art, we certainly would except it most likely would not be accepted as 'art' and would be in the trash heaps where it belongs. Kant did not invent non objective art, he merely philosophically justified it and is responsible to a great degree today for it's mainstream acceptance.

I second that, sure people would have been making crap like that anyway, but Kant seemed to have laid the philosophical ground work for that nonsense to actually be accepted and revered as "Art", without his influence, people would be making it, but no one would be hanging it on walls in frames and charging admission to it. Matus, I'm not sure in what sense you're seconding that. I seconded the notion that Dragonfly's rebuttal was seriously lacking that 'it needs considerably more than a dismissive handwave' and your point about non-western art never adopting the modes of post modernism was a strong one. These quotes from Kant speak enough, you have a person considered by many to be absolutely brilliant extolling the greatness of an entirely internalized 'feeling' that comes from art as 'sublime' but only when it is explicitly something that both the artist and the art admirer are unable to objectively identify. Kant's influence has permeated popular culture since his writing, has anyone else created such a powerful and eloquent defense of non-objective art? It's unreasonable to disassociate the influence of one of the worlds most influential philosophers from one of the things that he emphasized more than any other philosopher ever has and to not attributes the rise in that thing in the culture most admiring of him to that influence. I've never heard such explicit defenses of feelings disassociated from reason and no where is that more prevalent in the mainstream then in 'non-objective' art. Dragonfly insists on a year by year dissertation on every single influence in every human mind Kant's writings had to prove he had an influence on the modern rise of non-objective art, as if we need to have a complete picture of the memetic history of these ideas in order to reasonable suspect their casual relationship, a completely unreasonable criteria. It's likely enough that it's not worth the effort to investigate, Dragonfly's refutations are attacks on standard for implied casual relationships, not on the evidence which supports it. I did, and would again. Art, if the word has any significant meaning beyond stuff hung on a wall, would mean non-objective abstract post modern art is not art, because no useful meaning of that word can include both those and the great works of art. But of course, Dragonfly can use "art" in any way he pleases, even if the way he uses it ultimately means nothing. That is what I was seconding

Come now, really? You must not have been around very long (checking) your profile says you joined yesterday. So my biggest reach isnt much of one I suppose I'll have to try harder ;) You do not need to be explicitly familiar with Kant or Plato to have ideas they promulgated integrated into your ideas of art. I have not seen any "abstract" art (in the sense you are using it, I think) that I have ever liked, in fact for most of my life the very existence of it, and the fact it was called "Art" made me not like any art. But good art, imo, uses 'abstraction' I was here for the disgusting Victor debacle, but what does this have to do with anything? Are you suggested my comment is plagiarism? Or are you just taking us down a ride on your train of thought complete with track jumping and derailments? Can you define your use of "abstraction" here, so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing?

Non-objective art is not the same as crap. No doubt a lot of crap has been made in that style, but that is true for other styles as well. Further, the story of the Emperor's new clothes is also already centuries old. What "art" means to each individual is a subjective preference, but if the word "Art" is to have any consistent and useful meaning, than yeah, non-objective art IS the same as crap, of course, in varying degrees. Art can be appreciated on many different levels, style, execution, complexity, colorful richness, and on the message or non message it is trying to convey, and how well it conveys that message. Art indistinguishable from randomness is not art, it is crap, it is intellectual vomit. Give me a useful definition for art that includes New York City trash collected and hung on a wall in a frame and Rodin's "The Kiss", a definition that has any merit or worth beyond some self referential mystical notion and I'll reconsider my position.

I second that, sure people would have been making crap like that anyway, but Kant seemed to have laid the philosophical ground work for that nonsense to actually be accepted and revered as "Art", without his influence, people would be making it, but no one would be hanging it on walls in frames and charging admission to it.

How about some more Kant quotes? Kant's insistence on never using an person as a 'means to an end' has always resonated very strongly with me, and seemed so similar to Rand's "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask someone to live for mine" that I was quite surprised to read later how much Rand despised Kant. But really this aspect of Kant (his Kantianistic respect for persons, vs the predominant utilitarianism of that time) was the only aspect I was familiar with at that time. His categorical imperative and insistence that duty is our purpose in life seems to contradict the kantinistic respect for persons, as duty implies people's lives are only to be used as a means to another 'higher' end. Can some of the Kant advocates here give a little more detail on his primary works and what he was essentially trying to argue in them?

I was just re-reading Rand's Playboy interview and found this exact question posed to her.

Here's what it might look like - Bruce Lee vs Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the film Game of Death: That was exactly what came to my mind. ;) Lee is one of the most admirable people for his sheer physical perfection, flexibility, strength, speed, balance, endurance, etc. He seemed to be top percentile in every catagory. I took a Kung Fu class for some time, and the most advanced student in the class could launch into a spinning jump kick in the blink of an eye, it was absolutely fast enough to take someone completely off guard and deal a devastating blow to someone's head. He was a relatively short guy as well, but he could have taken me out before I had the chance to raise my arm to block. I can not fathom how fast Lee was probably able to move, though I've read reports of it and have seen some of the rare demonstration videos (he slowed down his moves for film because they were so quick as to be too blurry) I think someone with that kind of speed and strength could certainly take out someone much larger than he. Great example, and very interesting "power to weight" ratio differences. Honestly I didn't realize the difference was that extreme, the smaller fella almost has twice the strength to weight ratio of the larger. Also, physiologically, as I understand so far, the kinds of muscle cells which facilitate outright strength are different that those for endurance, and both are different than those for explosive speed. The seems to be evidence of varying degrees that for the most part the ratio of these cells is fixed genetically (hence the large number long distance runner records coming from a small village in Kenya) but some evidence suggests that with training one kind of cell can change into another. So it could be that the kind of working out you do will also effect your strength / speed capabilities. And 472 kg = 1,040.58 pounds. wow. just wow.

Interesting Discussion, though I think the response to Virginia is a bit harsh. Some comments - Even if being skilled in Karate gives her a false sense of being able to defeat a much larger opponent in a street fight, I seriously doubt she'd hang around long enough to find out. As I understand, most self defense orientated classes first teach you how to avoid perilous situtaitons as much as reasonably possible, I doubt they teach you to search out a fight. And no person with a modicum of self respect would do that. Having any skills in martial arts should give her some statistical advantage in surviving any hostile encounter. Merely being in good shape will help her body live through serious injuries, she will have the endurance to fight longer and strength to fight harder than non-trained women. Knowing the most vulnerable places to strike, regardless of size, will give her another statistical advantage. You asked her to hang around, and not run off, as an effort to demonstrate her likelyhood of surviving a street encounter. This is entirely unrealistic, no 'street fight' has rules which forbid you to run off. If running is not an immediate option, she would probably serve a debilitating strike to a critical area (throat, groin, knee) disabling the attacker, and run off. Have significant martial arts training would make such a strike much more likely to be successfull. An attacker, even a big one, would tend to go for more 'durable' targets, so to speak, head, chest, etc. Even if you're a big guy, it's not easy to break through bones with a punch, bones have the tensile strength of cast iron, and bones which have been routinely worked out can be significantly stronger as bones respond to stresses applied to them by strengthening. Comparing the relative sizes in competitive sports is not necessarily relevant, especially football strikes, where momentum is the only thing that matters (size times speed) The biological laws of scaling should also be considered. Muscle strength increased with the cross sectional area of a muscle, while weight increases with the VOLUME of the muscle, so relative to ones own mass, the bulkier a person is the LESS STRONG they are compared to their own weight. In other words, smaller, very fit people, can accelerate much faster than larger muscle bound people. They can change directions, swerve, etc. This is why even small men can be excellent basketball players. While Virginia maybe could not block an outright blow from that big guy, she could dodge it with much less effort than it would take him to dodge a kick to the groin from her. The bigger you are, the harder it is for you to move yourself out of your own way. The IDF uses as many women as it does men in it's armed services, and routinely places them into the same combat situations with men. Their training, Krav Maga, seems to allow them to hold their own in combat. I'll take a female IDF trained person as a partner in a fight any day over my untrained large male friends. And I'd place my bets on Bruce Lee over Shaq any day.

Nicotine != Smoking Of course, but the context of your post seemed to suggest that smoking was not related in any form to weight and weight gain, clearly it is. Smoking gives you a dose of Nicotine, among other things, that suppress your appetite and increase your basal metabolic rate. I'm saying that, according to Rand, yes the above type of act would be immoral. I agree that such a thing is immoral, but I don't think this dividing line is always so easily discernable. But I do not agree that something which is immoral for one to do to themselves is something that should be illegal. No, I'm saying that this type of product, when we throw addiction on top of everything else should most definitely be illegal to SELL. To profit from addiction, harm, death, and hedonism should be clearly be illegal if logic is to prevail over politics. Should alchohol then be illegal? Soda? potatoe chips? candy? None of these are conducive to long term health, and are in fact harmful and are pretty much consumed for their short term hedonistic pleasure.

Bob, your comments again are nonsensical, indeed You can't seem to string anything together that's even remotely logically coherent. People do not gain weight from quitting smoking. People gain weight because they eat too much and/or exercise too little. People gain weight because of excess caloric intake. Wow gee Bob, I didn't know people gained weight from eating food and not exercising </sarcasm> Seriously, Don't be an ass. Smoking cigarettes can burn a few hundred extra calories per day (it's not the physical motion of smoking, but the increased metabolism and heart rate that come from physical stimulants) Nicotine is also an appetite suppressant. As I said in my original post, it's clearly better to be thin due to diet and exercise than it is to be thin because of smoking, but a person who does not have the genetic mutation which seems to be required to get cancer from smoking, who otherwise might have extreme difficulty keeping their weight down, might be healthier from a moderate smoking habit and being thin than being overweight without smoking. Approximately 50% of people have this mutation, which where present in the body is almost always one of the genes that has mutated to contribute to cancer in a person. That remains to be seen, it is your claim that all pleasure from smoking is only hedonistic. Are you suggesting then that EVERYTHING which is 'damaging' to one's health is 'immoral' ? What if something poses only a 'risk' of being damaging to one's health (like un protected sex with an allegedly monogamous partner) Or is it only things that are damaging to one's health AND hedonistic (pleasure for it's own sake) things that are immoral? Next question then is, ought these things which are damaging and hedonistic be illegal? Normally, we allow individuals to make up their own minds, and even if doing something we consider immoral, if they are hurting only themselves, we let them be. Are you suggesting that any act which might be considered immoral in this regard be illegal for individuals to do to themselves? I agree, but you seem to be suggesting that we ought to throw people in jail for wanting to go mountain climbing. I've established that in some cases smoking might even be beneficial for some peoples health (this would require genetic screening to know though) but even if you disagree with that, it's clear that in some people moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial for their health, other 'risk taking' behavior, like mountain climbing, has secondary benefits beyond the hedonistic rush of completing the climb, such as the physical fitness which comes from pursuing and achieving said task. The point being, some 'risk taking' behavior, which ultimately has short term hedonistic pleasure as it's ultimate goal, might also have secondary benefits. Where do you draw the line between what is moral and immoral? Merely where the mechanical health benefits are greater than the mechanical health detriment? Further, I'd bet some mountain climbers or sky divers might disagree with the results being 'only' hedonistic pleasure (I've done neither so can not attest to it, any objectivist climbers or sky divers out there?) but that's probably why I've never had any interest in either. "benefits to ourselves as living HUMAN beings" =/= benefits to ourselves as a collection of cells. There is a difference, though in most cases they are mutually inclusive. You are wading into unclear territory here Bob. If something that is more detrimental to our physical health is automatically always bad, regardless of it's contribution toward our psychological and spiritual health (or the perpetuation of our values) then Galt's threat to kill himself would have been immoral. If things which are detrimental to our physical health and whose only benefit is hedonistic pleasure are always immoral, then indeed smoking would be immoral. But so would many things people do that are of questionable health value, and of questionable psychological value, such as social drinking, sky diving, or motorcycling. But what of things that are contributive to our physical health, but detrimental to our psychological health? e.g. getting a mundane job, and then just playing video games and watching movies for the rest of one's life. Is such a life immoral? And what of things that while allowing us to physically live, curtail our ability to thrive and flourish humanistically? e.g. A woman choosing to be a wealthy man's 10th wife, in order to get the mechanical health benefits, or a poor man's first wife, in order to get the spiritual and psychological health benefits and try to live a fulfilling life, which of these are 'immoral' according to your assessment of the standards of morality in objectivism?

Happiness is the achievment of one's values, but your statement without context means that I could value making bombs and killing infidels, or playing practical jokes on people, and still be 'happy' and indeed this is not a hedonistic drug induced euphoria, but a real achievement of things that one values. The problem in your statement is that it says nothing of what one *ought* to value. What one *ought* to value is the decided by standard of life qua man, according to objectivism, not just 'life (mechanical existence)' and 'happiness (achievement of values)' because we can choose to value bad things. Something still guides our choices in what to value, and those things we choose to value ought to be good. So no, happiness is not the ultimate goal, even when qualified with a happiness that is the avhievement of values (as opposed to a drug induced euphoria) but it must be a happiness that comes from achieving the *right* kinds of values - not just any values.

It is not the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence which is one's highest value, as is suggested by your comment that 'life should be at the top of one's list of values' but a particular kind of life a eudaemonic 'good life' which mechanical perpetuation of existence is needed to achieve, but in some cases one might give up their 'good life' in order to sustain their existence, or even sacrifice everything they value in order to continue to exist. The valuation of a particular kind of life over one's mere existence is more clearly evident in Galt's threat to kill himself to prevent Dagny from being tortured than anywhere else within objectivism. Clearly some people derive some pleasure from smoking, and many other common things are more harmful to one's mechanical existence than smoking is, most people's drinking habits are actually more harmful, but smoking is the paternalists favorite cause these days. By your own demand of focusing only on that which perpetuates one's mechanical existence the most, we should all abandon drinking, smoking, bicylce riding (more dangerous than motorcycling) motorcyling (more dangerous than driving cars) cars (more dangerous than walking) mountain climbing, hang gliding, boating, swimming, etc etc etc. It is up to each individual person to decide whether the danger one thing poses to their mechanical existence outweighs the benefit something gives toward their achievement of 'the good life' In some cases the pleasure one derives from smoking as, for example, a celebration of one's value (after sex, or in deep thought) in pursuit of the 'good life' may very well outweigh the mechanical threat it poses to their existence. Furthermore, people lacking the P52 gene mutation are highly unlikely to ever get cancer from smoking (though they are still at risk from respiratory related illnesses) in such people, in some cases, it would be more beneficial to adopt a moderate smoking habit (just as doctors sometimes suggest 1 glass of wine a day has more benefits than disadvantages) because the weight many people gain from quitting smoking is more unhealthy than the smoking (assuming they lack the p52 gene mutation) Yet you will NEVER see a doctor recommend someone adopt a moderate smoking habit though, even if it is more healthy (of course, just being fit and eating right is more healthy than either option, except in the case of red wine consumption, where resverestrol appears to activate the SIR 2 gene and it's genetic repair mechanisms that other wise are only advocated by extreme caloric restriction with optimal nutrition diets) In short Bob's continually seeking to rule everyone's life 'for their own benefit' is not founded in objectivism, nor Bob's implicit assumption that every act is necessarily moral or not moral true - drinking green tea vs early grey tea? which is more conducive to my life? which is more conducive to living a good life? which is moral, or immoral? Having 1 wife or 10 wives? Which does objectivism say is right? which is moral, which immoral? why?

Interesting concept, but after trying it out on one of my own essays, it looks like all it does it cut out the 2nd half of every paragraph. I could discern no intelligent condensing of concepts or anything of that extent. The points which always seemed to be cut where always in the latter part of paragraphs.

I consider anyone a social tyrant who believes that either they have the right to tell other people what to do for 'their own good' or they feel morally compelled to force other people to do what they think would objectively be best for them. That's not their call to make, Howard is very clear about this in his post, he thinks he has the right to tell me what to do with my life, to tell me what I can and can not consume based on what he think's would be best for me. To this kind of attitude my reaction is a very real and visceral "F#$* You" It's insulting, de-humanizing and solipsistic. When they are a social tyrant by desire, but lack the tools and weapons to enforce their tyranny, they are 'frustrated' I am currently experiencing difficulties acquiring a non-addictive, virtually no side effect medication which requires a prescription in the US but is sold over the counter in Europe, and is safer than Caffeine. The FDA is cracking down on the company which manufactures this drug for 'off label' use, while simaltaneously the US military is testing this drug for use specifically for this particular 'off label' function. A bunch of do gooders think that either they know whats best for me, or don't particular care if what they think is best for the majority of people hurts or inhibits quality of life for a minority. Utilitarianism is bullshit, and so is the idea that it's justifiable to make someone a slave if you think 'objectively' it makes their life better. Well, this thread wasnt about why he distanced hismelf from the philosophy, he jumped in insisting that he has the right to tell us what to do. And you suggest their is value in giving an audience to that? Do you discuss politely the reasons behind your muggers desire to mug you? Do you examine his point of view? Do you ask a theif to try to pursuade you as to why his theft is just? I consider my right to my own life axiomatic and beyond discussion, and anyone who starts with the premise that I do not have said right, and in fact that they do, deserves no serious consideration from me. Or, as you said, I'm sure Howard has other things which might be of value to examine, but his right to tell us how to lives our lives is of no value to discuss.

Such is true of all human behavior, As Aristotle opined so presciently, it is all a very complicated interaction of randonmess, genes, social habits, and volitional choice. Volitional choice appears to be able to over ride all other influences of human behavior, if a person so chooses to. If they do not live an informed critically examined life, social habits and genetic influences dominate. The idea that human behavior is either nature or nature is not only a false dichotomy, as behavior can be complicated influences from both, but excludes other possibilities from consideration explicitly, such as chance and volition. I believe ultimately that volition can completely over ride all other influences, but no doubt in some circumstances and in some people there is a much stronger genetic influence or social influence that makes it more difficult to over ride than it is for someone who might not have a genetic tendancy. Though I confess to be no master of absolutely all my habits and behavior and certainly some behavior can be extremely difficult to change. MSK, even with extreme difficulties, do you think ultimately any behavior, as long as one remains conscious, can ultimately be dominated by volition?

My reaction here is the same as Shayne's, Howard is a frustrated little social tyrant who feels it's his right to force other people to live how he demands they ought. Speaking as non drug user (up until a year ago I had never even consumed a drop of alchohol) I never the less do not go around demanding no one else ever drink or smoke or shoot heroin. MSK I am sure you've heard the argument that it is only because drugs are illegal that kids get caught up in the dealing mix in that manner. If you could by heroin at walmart, there certainly wouldnt be kids forced to sell it by adults. Careful of utilitarian arguments here too Howard, Utilitarians would be content in fixing foot long spikes to steering wheels in cars, this would surely drop the accidental death rate as everyone would be a lot more careful driving, but such a thing is certainly completely unjust. I don't care if more guns = less crime when having the right to own a gun is a manifestation of mu right to life (which necessitates the material ability to defend it) I don't care if SUV's kill more people because it is idiots who don't know how to drive them, I on the other hand will be safer in one. And I don't care if legalizing drug use will cause more people to become addicts and generally make things worse (though most evidence suggests otherwise) when we each have a right to our own life and bodies, even if that includes ruining it. If Howard wants to help people kick bad habits WITHOUT COERCION more power to him, if he wants to descend on us with swat teams and automatical rifles that's a different story entirely.

You just agreed with MSK not to repeat back the other person's rhetoric. Learn to read, MSK said (emphasis added) which is what I agreed to. Kind of a catch 22 don't ya think? You won't discuss things with me, until I start discussing things differently. No problem though, given your obsession with obfuscation, I doubt you have any good contributions to make anyway.

Again: Didn't think so. *yawn* And here we are on what, post 10, and yet you still refuse to make any sincere effort to make any arguments or points. I see no point in carrying on any further discussion with you if all you want to discuss is how we discuss things. If you are not now going to actually make some points about the question I've posted to you a half dozen times all ready then don't bother responding, because I won't be reading more yapping about how you think I am insincere and unable to interpret your arguments (which you rarely ever make) I want to know some good objections to the logical implications of supporting a lesser evil against a greater evil in the context of conscription, you have yet to make any, and instead only just barely realized that supporting conscription in some contexts was actually the direct logical implication of your own stated beliefs. If you don't think that is the case please state why. I think most people, when faced with someone who does not clearly understand thier point, would rather spend a couple posts clarifying their point instead of exhibiting solipsitic frustration at their readers lack of clairvoyant divination. Really now, your lack of sincerity is all that is clear to me about you.

Michael, I have altered a post by Shayne where he cut loose with a "fuck you" to a new member and deleted the phrase. I request that you refrain from this kind of thing also. I have learned your methodology of repeating the same fallacy or rhetorical category back at a person, but please keep it to a higher standard. I am not removing it because another poster made a quip about it and I do not want to micromaange grown adults. I appreciate your attention to this. No problem MSK Of course no one (sans Shayne apparently) would actually think any of us are *paid* to post here.