regi

Oh yes! Perhaps all collectivism begins with that tiniest tribal unit—everything for the sake of the family, then the wider family; the community (tribe), then the widest tribe: society (or "one's country"), taught to every memeber from the day they are born. There is nothing wrong with families that consist of members who remain close only because they find real value in each other without obligation or sense of "duty." I was very fortunate to have parents who taught me I was not born with an obligation to anyone, not even my parents, but that I was responsible only to and for myself. Nevertheless there were cousins, aunts, and uncles that I loved the company of because they were all so different and all told stories that stimulated my imagination or just made us all laugh. That was in the 40s and 50s, when individual's were mostly free to live their lives as they chose and people appreciated each other for their differences. Even in those days our family was unusual. I don't think there are any like that today. Most are just as you described, collectivist and anti-individualist, in which everyone is obligated to the family, the family's views, the family's religion, the family's values, and the most "needy" family members, and woe to any family member that chooses to think for themselves and to live their own life as they choose in betrayal of their familial duty. Thanks for reminding me of another reason to be disappointed in what the world has become. Randy

Exactly. They were not individualists, but opportunists, sychophants, "Objectivists;" which means they missed the whole point and purpose of all Rand wrote. Whether she succeeded or not, her stated purpose of all she wrote was about individualism, which she mistakenly thought could be promoted. One cannot become an individualist by adopting an ideology, "philosophy," or religion. Well many of them, especially at ARI, wrote a lot that was inadvertently fiction. (Just my snide way of agreeing with you.) You are right about one thing, being an individualist is the costliest way of living there is, but why shouldn't it be? Why shouldn't the most valuable thing in the world be the most costly? It is the only thing worth living for, what one is and has made of himself living in the only way one is willing to live. It is that cost that most are unwilling to pay and choose to settle for something less. I've written about it, Hated—The Individualist In a Collectivist World. I know you know something about that. Randy

Oxymoron!

Seriously doubt it. Talent is rare. So is discernment. It has nothing to do with innate talent. Roarke was an example of an independent individualist which anyone can be if they choose to be. It's just that most people do not choose to be. "Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man." [For the New Intellectual,—The Fountainhead, "The Soul Of An Individualist"] "But if you wonder how I look at Roark in relation to men as we see them around us—I'll say that any man who has an innate sense of independence and self-respect, and a spark of the creative mind, has that much of Roark in him. Any man can follow Roark's principles—if he has intelligence, integrity and courage. He may not have Roark's genius, but he can function in the same manner and live by the same morality—within the limits of his own ability. He must live by the same morality—the morality of individualism—if he wants to survive at all. [The Letters of Ayn Rand, We The Living to The Fountainhead (1931-1943), November 30, 1945] You may not agree with Rand, but Anthony's view certainly does. Randy

A truly moral individual does not emulate anyone, but I have to admit I have used Roark's words, "But I don’t think of you," on more than one occassion. Randy

The 2nd-grade reference was to the contradiction and hypocrisy of schools that begin sex education in pre-school, but suspend or punish children for any show of physical affection, like kissing or hugging. Where do you live? I know it's grim. I don't like it. Generalities are never true of everyone. But I didn't make it up. A little research on the percentage of girls in early teens sending nude selfies and a little CDC research on STD statistics for teens etc. will no doubt paint the same picture. I believe your teens are just what you say. You must be an excellent (and exceptional) mother. If they go to public school, and they feel comfortable with you, ask them about what others girls are doing. [Try these if you like: "Statistics," and "Sexual Risk Behaviors: HIV, STD, & Teen Pregnancy Prevention," and "Middle school youth are engaging in sexual intercourse as early as age 12."] One father (of two boys) told me what they were facing in a high income "prestigious" neighborhood school: "Seventy five percent of the girls send nude selfies on Snapchat. Maybe twenty five percent are virgins. All of them are willing to sexually please a boy they meet at a party, or hook up with on social media, orally or with their hands because they do not believe it is sex. The girls are worse than the boys, vying to outdo each other sexually." Another father wrote, "I could not believe the sexual aggressiveness of high school girls towards my sons and the sons of my friends. We had our work cut out for us, because one wrong move and a promising young man's college career would be sidelined by child support payments and a nagging babymama if things went wrong. I personally called the fathers of a couple of the aggressive girls who had been offering themselves, and was met with total passivity and unconcern." I do not judge what young people are doing. It is what they are being taught and are exposed to all the time, everywhere, in school, entertainment, and what passes for literature. Only the strongest and most independent young people can escape the influence of "all sex all the time" that pervades American culture. If you can do this, ask your daughter and teen friends if they know what the lyrics to Ariana Grande's "Side to Side" mean. They're not at all subtle. I won't even mention rap. If your girls aren't listening to it, good, but most girls their age are. (I'll send you a description of the lyrics if you want.) I'm glad your experience with your daughter and her friends is not what I know is happening all over this country. For example: This story is from "conservative" New Hampshire. "Unwelcome exposure: Website's 'wins' are nude selfies of NH girls." Where did all those pictures of nude teens come from? They took them to send to their boyfriends. There are always decent young people and I'm delighted yours are, but to believe most are today is sadly unrealistic. Randy

You are right, Michael, it is certainly not universal and in fact is very uncommon. In most areas of most people's lives their behavior is not determined objectively, not based on values, and not rationally chosen, which is why most people's lives, including their sex lives, are such disasters. Sometimes, Michael, you have real insights into things. "Rand knew that exercising the volitional mind required a lot of effort (another fact borne out in spades by neuroscience--this activity consumes quantities of calories like nothing else the human body does) ...." This is what Rand referred to: "I believe that our mind controls everything—yes, even our sex emotions. Perhaps the sex emotions more than anything else. Although that's the opposite of what most people believe. Everything we do and are proceeds from our mind. Our mind can be made to control everything. The trouble is only that most of us don't want our minds to control us—because it is not an easy job." [The Letter of Ayn Rand, "Return To Hollywood (1944)". To Gerald Loab, August 5, 1944.] Thinking is hard, especially when what one is thinking about is associated with strong emotions and desires, and especially when one's feelings or desires seem in conflict with what knows is right. It is easier to just do what requires no hard thinking or ruthless decisions, no discomfort, and requires no special effort. It's much easier to "surrender" to one's feelings, to blame firing neurons or chemicals in the brain then to make hard choices. But of course, blaming one's physiology for their behavior is also a choice and is never really the easy way out, long term. As far as Rand's motives or psychology is concerned, I certainly have no knowledge about that. I only know what she cared to say about such things herself, which is all I can address. But I do not agree that, "letting go," is a reward for maintaining one's rational objectivity. The reward is the accomplishment of that self-control that makes one know they are in complete control of every aspect of their life, and that it is right. That is the ultimate reward that only the ruthlessly rational can know as a kind of supreme transcendent ecstasy that makes every pleasure, physical and psychological, supreme. On a not-so-serious note, you wrote: "Rand's love scenes are full of this state, too, except there is generally some biting, scratching and blood to go along with it." Have you ever seen cats mate? Randy

Wolf, would you explain the meaning of that for the metaphorically deprived? Randy

A bit of understatement, I think, Anthony. Children are having sex from twelve and up and probably would earlier if they could. But it's a mistake to think it has anything to do with love. For the most part, sex has replaced love and today's children will never have chance to know what true romantic love is. Second-graders are punished for hugging or kissing, but are taught there is nothing wrong with sex, anytime, any way, with anyone, "as long as it's consensual." Randy

That's enlightening.

Hi Anthony. I don't think we have an impasse, just a different way so seeing some things. I really am not trying to convince you. Most people who understand the nature of concepts do consider them to be knowledge. That is not a terribly wrong view. Every concept, at least for adults, does imply knowledge--knowledge of a concepts meaning provided by its definition. But a concept itself does not have a meaning without the definition, a proposition, e.g. "a [the word of a concept] is [the definiton]." When Rand wrote, "a concept is a method of expanding man's consciousness by reducing the number of its content's units--a systematic means to an unlimited integration of cognitive data," she was referring to universals (the only kind of concept she recognized) and was referring to her belief that a universal concept in some way subsumed all its referents or particulars (which she referred to as units). But, of course a concept doesn't subsume anything. A concept does not mean, "all possible referents, particulars, or units," it mean any possible referent, particular, or unit--that is, any existent with the attributes of any unit identified by that concept. Dog means any dog, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, not all dogs. The word [concept] dog identifies a particular kind of existent. Identifying an existent as, "dog," only identifies what kind of existent it is. It does not provide any other knowledge about dogs beyond what is necessary to identify a dog as a dog and differentiate it from all other kinds of existents. The concept dog does not contain any knowledge about dogs beyond its definition. The vast store of knowledge about dogs consists of every proposition one knows that begins, "a dog is ...." We don't have to agree. My best. Randy

Hi Michael, I wanted to comment on this, but considering the nature of the thread, the comment does not belong here, so I've started a new thread with an article: "Ayn Rand And The End Of Love." Randy

On another thread the subject of Rand's depiction of sex came up in reference to the so-called 'rape scene' near the beginning of The Fountainhead. Michael made an interesting comment that I think Ayn Rand herself would have agreed with regarding that controversial passage. "In Rand's story, Roark was not a sexist pig and Dominique was not a defenseless woman being terrorized as a sex object and nothing more. They were both individuals for whom the rules of others did not apply. They made their own realities and they did not bow to society. They were the same kind of people. From that lens, the rape scene was their highest tribute to each other." I'm sure in Rand's view that depiction was meant as a "tribute." But Rand had a very peculiar view of love and sex. What was meant to be a tribute was a depiction of crude, adolescent sex, without any finesse or tenderness, just animal passion. It was an example of the dominate view of the current age that confuses sex with love. A couple of years ago I published an article, "Ayn Rand, Beauty, Love, and Tenderness," in which I described what was wrong with Rand's view of love and sex. In both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, her hero's love making was always rough, and that roughness was always "excused" as an expression of strength, passion, and "a right to what was being enjoyed." But that excuse neglects the very nature of romantic love. Ayn Rand did not understand tenderness, gentleness, grace, and adoration. Not only are these expressions of romantic love, they are particularly masculine in nature. One cannot contemplate the most valuable object this world holds for them, the most precious and important thing in one's life without a profound sense and desire to preserve, adore, and protect that one whose very existence has become, for him, the very meaning of life. This is the very important point Ayn Rand missed—while the male is the stronger of the two sexes, and that strength ought to be manifest in how that love is expressed—the greatest manifestation of strength and power in the world is when that strength is used with the greatest control. Roughness is not an expression of strength, only crudity. The most delicate and precise movements require enormous strength. The greatest illustration is the grace of the ballet dancer; tenderness and gentleness require the greatest combination of strengths, physical, emotional, and intellectual. She misunderstood the kind of triumphant strength, the Herculean effort required to express one's love with controlled passion, with the loving attention and excruciatingly delicate power of a sculptor, required to achieve the most sublime beauty of ecstasy. Any strong man can treat a woman roughly. Only a hero of enormous strength of character can express his greatest passion with that enormous self-control that turns every touch into a caress and every movement into an expression of an all-consuming love. Ayn Rand's heroes exhibited enormous strength in other areas of their lives, but in her depiction of their "love making" they are presented more as out-of-control adolescents than heroic lovers. The roughness Ayn Rand describes in her love scenes is actually a depiction of crudeness and weakness on the part of her romantic heroes, who are both unimaginative and shallow in their love making. If they were truly strong and truly loved the one they, "possessed," that passion would have been expressed with the greatest finesse they were capable of and with the utmost tenderness. Love And Values In her prose descriptions of romantic love, Rand expressed some very important insights, but also expressed some things which are very ambiguous. "Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." [The Voice of Reason, "Of Living Death."] I agree that romantic love is that love one has for another that is the embodiment of one's own highest values. Her mention of sexual desire and "spiritual" values is a bit odd, however. "Love is a response to values. It is with a person's sense of life that one falls in love—with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person's character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness." [The Romantic Manifesto, "Philosophy and Sense of Life."] The most ambiguous of her statements about sex, I think, is contained in her Playboy interview: "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. ".... "[Sex should] involve ... a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons' lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values." [Playboy Interview, Playboy, March 1964.] Rand considers, "promiscuity immoral," but it's not promiscuity so long as both parties take the relationship, "seriously," and it is, "based on values." Well maybe they take the relationship seriously based on their values tonight, but will they still love each other in the morning? Only in Rand's peculiar view of love could Dagny Taggert's bed hopping from Francisco d'Anconia to Hank Reardon to John Galt be considered anything other than promiscuity. Rand was wrong. There is only one relationship between a man and woman in which sex is appropriate, the relationship between two totally committed in romantic love for their lifetime. That kind of love does not require a ceremony (marriage or any other) because nothing in this world can separate two people who have found and chosen each other as their greatest reward and purpose in life. They are, as well, the only individuals for whom sex can be completely satisfying and fulfilling, because sex is, for them, an affirmation and fulfillment of their love. Of course the question of whether to engage in a sexual relationship is entirely up to the individuals involved. Since most such relationships today are not in the context of romantic love, they are always harmful to those in such relationships and are usually disastrous, no matter how much the popular world of literature and entertainment glorifies them. Nevertheless, it is nobody else's business what any individuals choose do with their own lives, sexually or any other way. I want to emphasize that because I do not like how Rand has been criticized for how she lived her own life. I think her views about love and sex were wrong, but how she lived her own life is nobody else's business. Rand, Sex, and Sado-masochism In preparing for writing the infamous sex scene between Roak and Dominique in The Fountainhead, Rand wrote: "Like most women, and to a greater degree than most, she [Dominique] is a masochist and she wishes for the happiness of suffering at Roark's hands. Sexually, Roark has a great deal of the sadist, and he finds pleasure in breaking her will and her defiance." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "7 - Notes While Writing, Theme of Second-Hand Lives."] Rand despised subjectivism and in her explicit philosophical view of sex she could write: "The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you ... Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions." [For the New Intellectual, "The Meaning of Sex."] "I believe that our mind controls everything—yes, even our sex emotions. Perhaps the sex emotions more than anything else. Although that's the opposite of what most people believe. Everything we do and are proceeds from our mind. Our mind can be made to control everything. The trouble is only that most of us don't want our minds to control us—because it is not an easy job." [The Letter of Ayn Rand, "Return To Hollywood (1944)". To Gerald Loab, August 5, 1944.] "... sex is the one field that unites the needs of mind and body, with the mind determining the desire and the body providing the means of expressing it. But the sex act itself is only that—an expression. The essence is mental, or spiritual." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "13-Notes While Writing: 1947-1952."] But her view of the sexual relationship between men and women as sado-masochistic is pure subjecitivism. She never provides an objective reason why a woman's sexual desire should be mixed with a desire for suffering, or an objective reason for a man's sexual desire to be mixed with a desire to break a women's will. It is contrary to the very nature of love. A woman's desire, springing from her love for a man, certainly will include a desire to be fully possessed by the man for his own pleasure because it affirms her own sense of being worthy of that desire. A man's desire for the woman he loves will certainly include the desire to possess her for his own pleasure which he can only fully realize in pleasing her. The very idea of suffering or the coercive control of another would make the whole experience of sex impossible to a moral individual. Both are the antithesis of love. Giving Others What They Want The masochistic desire to, "suffer," is a psychological aberration as is the sadistic "desire to hurt or physically control" another. The excuse that Rand makes is that Roak was only giving Dominique what she wanted. That excuse is used for almost every kind of evil act. Providing another with what harms them cannot be excused on the basis that it's what they wanted. I have no idea what pathology makes some people want to be hurt, but their desire does not justify someone taking advantage of their twisted desire to satisfy their own desire. Only moral individuals are capable or worthy of romantic love. A moral individual does not cheat, threaten others, rape, or "take advantage," of anyone's weaknesses or foibles, (he won't be a drug dealer, a pornographer, a pimp, a prostitute, a professional gambler, or a panderer to any other human irrational desire or obsession.) He will not take advantage of anyone for his own gratification. He will not use women (and she will not use men) for his own pleasure and attempt to justify it on the grounds that it was, "consensual." What an evil lie one must tell oneself to use another person as though it was OK because that person agreed to being used, or perhaps even enjoyed it. The sadist is not justified in harming another just because the other is a masochist. Every child molester, producer of pornographic, salacious, and degrading form of entertainment, every con artist and every drug dealer uses the excuse, "I'm only giving them what they want." The fact that most peoples' desires are not determined by objective values but driven by subjective feelings and irrational beliefs does not justify taking advantage of those irrational desires. If you need an explanation of the morally corrupt society of the age it is the dominant belief that so long as no one is being forced to do something, anything anyone desires to do, or do with others, is good. It used to be called, "free love," but is in fact the end of love.

Hi Anthony, That's partly Rand's fault, I suspect. I was always disappointed that Rand, in spite of her admiration of Aristotle and classical logic, never addressed this classical logic principle which is fundamental to epistemology. To be knowledge a thing must be true. Something which can be neither true or false is not knowledge. A concept only identifies existents. The concept represented by the word "peach" identifies a certain fruit. Saying "peach" is neither true or false, even if one knows what "peach" identifies. In classical logic, the word (and concept), "peach," is called a, "simple apprehension." Before anything can be true or false, something must be said about a thing. If I say, "a peach is a legume that grows underground," that is false. If I say, "a peach is a fruit that grows on trees," that is true. Until I say something about "peach," however, "peach," is neither true or false and is not knowledge. Try it yourself for any concept: Zeus, potato, phoenix, pyramid. Are any of those true or false? If you say, "potato," is it true or false? If you say, "phoenix," is it true or false? Not until you say something about a potato or phoenix can it be true or false. "A potato is a from of slipper," is false. "The phoenix is a mythical bird in Egyptian mythology," is true. Even though potatoes are real and the phoenix is a fiction, it is not the concepts that are true or false but what is said about the concepts. All by themselves, unrelated to anything else, they are neither true or false and therefore not knowledge. If one knows what a peach is, that of course is knowledge. That knowledge also requires a proposition. To know what a peach is there must be a proposition that describes what a peach is. That description is called a, "definition." Without propositions, no knowledge is possible, even the knowledge of a concept's meaning. The importance may not seem apparent, but epistemologically it is very important. The only function of concepts is identification of existents: entities, attributes, relationships, actions (or behavior) concrete or abstract, metaphysical or psychological. A concept does not imply or contain any knowledge about what it identifies. This is very important to understanding why concepts for anything, like, "dog," or, "winter," for instance, mean exactly the same thing (identify the same things) for both a child and a biologist or a child and a meteorologists. The concept only identifies the existents, the difference in the child's and scientist's knowledge about those existents does not change the meaning of the concepts. By the way, Rand was very confused about the nature of perception. If you are interested, my article, "Perception—The Validity of Perceptual Evidence," describes the true nature of perception as well as all that is wrong with the Objectivist view of perception. There is a shorter version of that article, "Perception," but it does not address the particular mistakes made by Rand. Randy

Well, we already know Rand disagrees with that. If you were right, of course, the concept, "unit," would not be a fact because it is not metaphysical. Actually, "units do not exist qua units, what exists are things, but units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships," is one of most meaningless statements Rand ever wrote. It's nonsense. Randy

Oh that's perfect. You have definitely identified a good and useful concept. Thanks, Johathan, Randy

Hi Anthony, I am totally familiar with Rand's definition of concepts, which happens to be wrong but close. If you are interested in a correct epistemology, please see the articles, "Knowledge," and, "Concepts--Simple." A fact is whatever acutally is. If someone has a concept, that concept is a fact which actually exists. It is not a metaphysical fact, it is a psychological fact. Rand did get that right. "Things of human origin (whether physical or psychological) may be designated as 'man-made facts'--as distinguished from the metaphysically given facts." [Philosophy: Who Needs It, “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”] Randy

Really? Then, what is it? A fiction?

Hi Michael, But they aren't interested in Ayn Rand or her philosophy. Those feigning such interest are only interested in Objectivism as a kind of ideology they can adapt or movement they can join, because it's easier than actually learning and applying philosophy. Exactly, Randy

I thought it was, Yawon Bwook. That's the way he says it. First time I heard him I thought it was Mel Brooks.

Michael, I found your comments, as well as Bob's, very interesting. Four years ago I published an article, The Wisdom of Tathagatagarbha, that treated reality metaphorically as the only true God. I use the name, Tathagatagarbha, a Sanskrit word for the Buddhist concept of the eternal and absolute essence of all reality, as the name of my metaphorical God, (Tath, for short). Though somewhat satirical the article illustrates that everything usually attributed to a God can be understood as reality, which is superior in every way to all the human invented gods.

What objectist metaphysics? There is no Objectivist metaphysics, or ontology. There's an ITOE, but there's no ITOM or ITOO. Both Rand's mistaken view of the nature of perception and her epistemology could have been corrected if based on a sound ontology. Don't think any questions of aesthetics are going to be answered by appealing to Rand's non-existent metaphysics.

Hi Anthony, Can you describe what you mean by, "mountain of pain?" Is it physical pain, or some kind of emotional pain. I have the impression, whatever it is, it has convinced you the cost of living is greater than the reward. If you really want help, though, you will have to make it clear what the nature of your suffering is. I cannot help you without knowing exactly what it is that has happened in the last year that is the cause of your pain. But I will make two observations that might help for now. The first is, since it is only your experience in the last year that has made you dispair of finding happiness, it might help to know that everything changes. Whatever you are suffering will not last forever. The second is the fact you asked the question. It means you have not competely surrendered to dispair and that you would like to have a reason to go on living. There is a reason to go on living, but you can only discover that when the nature of what you call your pain and drudgery is identified. Until then, neither I or anyone else is going to be able to help you. I don't think you need a philosophy lesson and I don't think anyone knows enough to be making medical suggestions. Ultimately you will be the one who makes the decision about what you must do and only you can know what decision is right. I will help you discover what that is if you'll decribe exactly what is causing your pain and unhappiness. Randy

Anthony, did I say it was an exclusively "philosophical" concept? If I did, I was mistaken and apologize. It is certainly not what I think. I do think aesthetics has a philosophical foundation that explains its nature, just as language is not exclusively a philosophical concept, but cannot really be understood without an epistemological foundation. I was only referring to that particular experience that one associates with their own understaning of beauty and the question was why human beings should have that particular experience as part of their nature. It is a uniquely human experience, like humor, pathos, and embarrasment (we laugh, cry, and blush), and the same question applies to them as well. I assumed most would be bright enough to understand the question was rhetorical. I know why we have those particular uniquely human experiences, as you do, because we have minds and are able (must) evaluate all our experiences. It's exactly as you say, "value," and one's values determine what they will experience as funny, sad, embarrasing, or beautiful. I personally find very little of value, especially aesthetic value, in either of what are called graphic or performing arts, but do find some in literature and classical music. I find much more negative value in all of what is called art, expecially when mixed with "entertainment." Of course that's my judgment based on my values, but if you want to understand why I make that judgement, it is similar to Rand's which she expressed in, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation." Merry Christmas! Randy

I totally agree. I have listened to and read what everyone who uses the word art identifies by that word. After discovering what those who use the word art mean by it, I then evaluated that which they have identified. It is similar to discovering what those who use words like "duty," or, "subconscious," attempt to identify by those words, then evaluating the usefulness of such words. Now I don't mind your presumptuous psychologizing but trying to guess what other's psychological processes are is usually fruitless. As in this case, it made you miss the whole point of my post, which I'll make a different way. Much, if not all, of what has ever been called, "art," if it has any value is only market value. With regard to what is truly important to human life and history, except for its commercial aspects and negative affects, its presumed importance is a complete deception, with the possible exception of some literature and music. It is because aesthetics is such an important philosophical concept that I cannot allow it to be corrupted and preempted by reducing it to art. I do not mean I cannot allow anyone else to do it. It is strictly my view based on the principles I make all my choices by. It is, therefore, disappointing to me to discover a discussion about aesthetics that never addresses the fundamental questions of, "what is beauty," "what is the aesthetic sense?" (why are we able to recognize and enjoy beauty), and, "why do we have it?" What in the world is there in the nature of those things we see (or hear, or experience in any way) that is so, "beautiful," it moves us to tears or takes our breath away, and why are we able to have that incredible experience? Randy