regi

Well call it whatever you like, but I don't think it's very good epistemology to confuse the metaphysical (human beings) and the man-made (art and artifacts), speaking of mixing categories. It's something I notice Objectivists doing all the time in spite of Rand's explication of the difference. Human beings, by nature, are neither good or bad (virtuous or contemptible) but must choose what they are. To be lumped together with all human beings only means being lumped together with all other beings with the same metaphysical nature, capable of conscious choice, not with what any of their individual choices might be. I think you have misused sui generis. There is nothing unique or peculiar about my view. Most of what is called art by those who, "use the concept," is trash, and is used to promote both ideas and attitudes contrary to all ethical principles. If there is any value in anything called art it "is the enjoyment of those that use it. Everything else said about the purpose of art is so much blather." I only bring these things up, Michael, because I think aesthetics is so important, and am sorry to see a discussion that was meant to be about aesthetics reduced to a discussion of art. Randy

Actually, I do not have a definition of art. I accept whatever definition anyone chooses. Your definition is as good as any and pretty much confirms my view that, as a category of human creation, it is a mixed bag that is pretty much useless as a concept. I love classical music, but I do not call it art, because so many other forms of "music" are called art, that to call classical music art lumps it together with some of the most tasteless and contemptable of human creations. I think the phrase, "fine arts," can be clearer. I certainly don't mind if individuals want to create and listen to anything, as long as I'm not forced to listen to it, but if just everything is going to be called art, the word identifies nothing. That's just my view. I know almost no one else will agree with it. Randy

It used to be, but I'm afraid, as in everything else, sex has replaced love, and romantic love has been completely swamped in this age of, "all sex all the time." Thanks for your explanation. I have an impression from it that you include just anything and everything ever drawn (cave drawings), painted (landscaptes), written (stories), or performed (pop music) as art. I don't think that is true since you were careful earlier to say art is a particular category. I know it is common to refer to popular singers and musicians as, "artists," but if what they are producing is art, then art is certainly not a positive influence on human values or principles. Randy

Hi Michael, I have never understood why art is considered a need. In my study of history I have not discovered one thing that has been improved by any form of "art," in the sense that Rand or you mean by art. A great deal of evil has been promoted using art as the excuse, as it is today. While art certainly is a source of pleasure to many, especially music and literature, I cannot think of one composer or author the world could not have lived perfectly well without. This is a serious question. What is art needed for? And exactly what is, "the wider concept 'art?'" By the way, Merry Christmas! Randy

Aren't the real numbers all numbers that have decimal representations that have a finite or infinite sequence of digits to the right of the decimal point, positive, negative, or zero? Aren't complex numbers all the real numbers, imaginary numbers, and sums and differences of real and imaginary numbers? Why aren't these definitions? Just curious? Randy

The utility is obvious. What makes it art?

What are the "special sciences?" I know what the physical sciences are. Randy

Agreed. There is damn little beauty in anything called art.

Well, that's to be expected, since psychologists, philosophers, and even Rand have so confused the nature of the emotions: If you are truly interested in the nature of the emotions, please see the article, "Feelings." The following is from that article: "The emotions provide a direct perceptual experience of the content of consciousness. While we are conscious of our thoughts intellectually, the emotions provide a direct "visceral" experience corresponding to conceptual consciousness. Making plans for something good is accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and anticipation; thinking or contemplating doing, or having done, something we think is wrong will be accompanied by feelings of guilt or regret; thinking about someone we admire, desire, and value very highly is accompanied by feelings of love and affection; considering something evil and ugly is accompanied by feelings of anger or revulsion. "In our actual experience, we do not usually distinguish between our thoughts and their accompanying feelings and experience them as units. The feelings and the thoughts are integrated into objects of consciousness which turn abstract thoughts into concretes which are directly perceived. "Our emotions, as automatic reactions to our immediate consciousness, is the way our human consciousness enables us to directly enjoy or "physically" experience both direct perception and our conceptual identification and evaluation of the things we perceive simultaneously. "The emotions are our nature's way of converting the abstract elements of conceptual consciousness, our concepts, values, and thoughts, into "physical" experiences. The emotions make our minds, as well as our bodies, sensuous. "Since it is the enjoyment of our lives that is their purpose, the purpose of the emotions is to enable us to enjoy our lives, particularly that most human aspect of our lives as humans, our minds. When the emotions are not a source of joy, but of suffering, it is an indication of something wrong. The thing that is wrong can be physiological, but more frequently the thing that is wrong is an individual's view of life, one's values, one's thoughts, and one's choices, and the thing that is wrong with them is they are contrary to reality and dominated by unrealistic views and desires." Randy

This is a wonderful example of the many times Rand was, "this close," to the truth, then missed it, like her epistemology. It is not art that brings man's concepts to the perceptual level, it it our emotions and the purpose of them. There is another odd mistake in that paragraph. Art cannot concretize the metaphysical, the metaphysical is the concrete. Art might be the concretization of an ideal or principle, as an example, illustration, or model, but one cannot concretize what is already concrete. The importance of art it is highly overblown. The aesthetic sense is very similar to the sense of humor. The capacity to enjoy emotionally the recognition of beauty is a wonderful thing, just as the ability to appreciate irony and exaggeration as humorous is a wonder thing, but many people just do not have much of a sense of humor; others, for various reasons, have vary little capacity for enjoying beauty. Neither is necessary to a fully successful and happy life. Nice if you have them, it doesn't matter if you don't. Since most art is not "beautiful" to begin with and most "art" represents ideas and viewpoints that are not only wrong, but frequently vile and evil, it is very difficult to honestly make a case for the value of art. If there is any true value in any art, it is swamped by all the harmful influence of most of what goes by the name art. Randy

It was not my point at all, but I can't help how something seems to someone else. If I've not made myself clear, I'll take the blame for that. Randy

Of course not. I know you don't realize it, but you've just made the point I was making. Randy

I agree with you. I almost never use the word "subjective" just because it is so ambiguous. But other people do use it, and I think the issue is worth assressing. The question is bound to come up in a discussion of aesthetics because beauty, like humor, depends on an individuals own beliefs, values, and thoughts.

Certainly not. As I wrote earlier, "What determines whether something is objective or subjective is what one's reasons and evaluation are based on, whether they are based on reason alone from the evidence of objective reality (objective) or are based on one's feelings, desires, superstitions, and prejudices alone (subjective). I think the confusion arises from not recognizing the fact that one's feelings, desires, superstitions and prejudices are themselves facts about which we can be conscious and reason about. If one has a superstitious belief in something, any reasoning based on that belief is subjective, because there is no objective evidence for the belief. If one recognizes they have a superstitious belief and identifies it as a superstitious belief based on reasoning from objective principles, for example, that identification is objective. Our feelings cannot be an objective basis for our thinking, but we can certainly think objectively about our feelings. Randy

Then you've made a mistake. Objective reason does not require either omniscience or infallibility, it only requires honesty with oneself, that one has done the best they can to insure their premises are based on reality. But you knew that, didn't you? Randy

Is seeing a tree and then objectively identifying you saw the tree not make the tree objective? A "feeling" is only a perception, like seeing, but what is being perceived is actual physiological states of the body. They are just as real, and physical by the way, as trees are. Randy

By the way, that is wrong. If your premises are wrong (garbage in) your reasoning is not objective. Unlike formal logic, objective reason includes the necessity of insuring your premises are based on reality or derived by reason from the facts of reality. Any reasoning based on false premises, on faith, or prejudice, or feelings, or whims, or mystic beliefs or assumptions or guesses is not objective reasoning. Objective means based on observable evidence of reality or other knowledge established by objective reason from observable evidence of reality. Randy

That's my premise. I don't think we disagree. I was only addressing the misuse of the word subjective to mean what occurs in an individual's consciousness. I quite agree that "objective reason" is a redundancy, but the mechanics of reason can be used irrationally (rationalization and sophistry for example), so sometimes the redundancy is necessary to differentiate the correct use of the rational process from the incorrect use. I certainly don't agree that you can get something, "epistemological," out of nothing, unless you believe the content of dreams are ontologically real. I have no idea what you mean by "metaphysical." In philosophy, the metaphysical is objective reality--the immutable what is. There is a different meaning of the word metaphysical but it is only used by various mystics and spiritualists. Randy

What are, "aesthetic responses?" If such things actually exist they have an objective identification. If they do not have an objective identifcation, they do not exist. If you label everything that is experienced consciously, "subjective," there is nothing objective because the entire universe is only known by means of our "subjective" conscious perception of it. Every thought we have, all the reasoning we do and every choice we make becomes subjective because we do those thing in our own private consciousness. You can see how absurd it becomes if everything is subjective just because it occurs in our own consciousness--it makes objectivity impossible. There would be no such thing as an objective thought, and objective concept, or an objective choice. Is everything you just wrote subjective because it all came from your, "subjective," mind? Of course it isn't because that is not what determines what is subjetive and what is objective. Randy

NO! That's no what subjective means. This terrible confusion introduced by certain "economists" and some academic philosophers is totally wrong. I've already addressed the mistake in my previous post. "Subjective," does not mean whatever occurs in an individual's mind else there would be no such thing as objective reason which only occurs in individual minds. What determines whether something is objective or subjective is what one's reasons and evaluations are based on, whether is based on reason alone from the evidence of objective reality (objective) or is based on one's feelings, desires, superstitions, and prejudices (subjective). If I have a specific physical condition that makes me incapable of tolerating certain foods, my evaluation of those foods as harmful to me is not subjective, but objective, even though that evaluation is made in my mind and only pertains to me. If I evaluate some food I've never tried as harmful to me because I imagine it's yucky from the way it looks, that is a subjective evaluation. It's not the fact that an evaluation is mine that makes it subjective, it is what I base that evaluation on. Objectively identifying a characteristic of one's own personality is not subjective, and evaluating things in relationship to one's own nature is not subjective. I think that is easy enough to understand, but if I've not made it clear, feel free to ask questions or criticize. Randy

Aesthetics is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical concept. Science is no more able to study aesthetics than it is humor, both of which are characteristics of the human psychological nature, not physical nature. I think the aesthetic nature can easily be explained, both in terms of its importance to the human mind and consciousness and in terms of its function. Essentially it is that aspect of human nature that makes the most sublime of human experiences possible, the bliss and ecstasy of a fulfilled life of romantic adventure. Art has very little to do with aesthetics.

and Brant, How interesting that you wrote that, because I said a similar thing in a post I intended for Brant Gaede. This is a good place for it. ________________________________________________ To my previous post I would like to add, since this thread is really about aesthetics, what Mises and others mistakenly call subjective values ought be called "market values." The difference between objective values and market values has real significance in understanding the value of art. The market value of a thing is determined by the collective evaluation of individuals participating in the market, and is almost always a mixture of those who make their evaluations objectively and those who make their evaluations subjectively. The market value of a thing, like a work of art, is only its, "economic," value as determined by the market, and may or may not reflect (and usually doesn't) its objective value, if it has any. It is easy enough to discover what determines the market value of a work of art which will be a combination public sentiment and beliefs, gullibility of buyers, current fashion, and the influence of "the greater fool theory," of value of collectibles. If there is any objective evaluation of art from the market standpoint it is indetectably slight. The aesthetic question is, "how is the objective value of a work of art determined?" It can certainly be evaluated as any other work is, in terms of the quality of craftsmanship of the artist, how well it accomplishes whatever the artist's intention was, but those are not particularly aesthetic qualities. Quite frankly, I do not know how a work of art can be objectively evaluated unless some objective standard that unambiguously identifies how a work of art ought to materially benefit those who use it is established, and how that benefit can be measured is determined. I do not believe any view of aesthetics to date, including Rand's, does either of those things. I also doubt that such an objective standard can be established, much less a means for measuring it. If that is the case, art is like many other things, of real objective value only in relation to how an individual finds value in it. I do not mean an individual's subjective judgment but their objective judgment of what the art does for them when they use it, e.g. reads it, looks at it, watches it, or listens to it. One reason I suspect this is true is because not everyone is able to appreciate art in the same way. A piece of music that is a source of real pleasure and inspiration to one individual is nothing but noise to someone who is tone deaf. This does no make the value of the art subjective. The pleasure and inspiration enjoyed by the music lover are objectively real, but only to that individual. I believe the same applies to all forms of art, and the objective value of any art can only be judged by the value that art is to the individual making the judgment. Randy

Maybe, but damn few understand it.

Perhaps not directly, but certainly conceptually: "The free market represents the social application of an objective theory of values. Since values are to be discovered by man’s mind, men must be free to discover them—to think, to study, to translate their knowledge into physical form, to offer their products for trade, to judge them, and to choose, be it material goods or ideas, a loaf of bread or a philosophical treatise. Since values are established contextually, every man must judge for himself, in the context of his own knowledge, goals, and interests. [That would be what Mises mistakenly call subjective value.] Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men’s ultimate arbiter: [That would be what Rand means by objective value.] ... if a man’s judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim." [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 23] Mises, like most of the Austrian school economists, misuses the term, "subjective," to mean whatever an individual mind does, blurring the fact that any mind, even the same mind, can engage in either objective or subjective reason. The difference between subjective and objective is the basis for one's reasoning, whether fact based on evidence and clear reasoning (based on objective reality) or based on feeling, emotion, faith, and whim (based on one's 'subjective' experience alone). Attempting to equate Rand's meaning with Mises' meaning of, 'subjective,' is just confusion. Randy

Yes, of course, but the requirement is a relative one, "if you want to have a good life." But that is not what people mean. There are many who are willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of some ideology or a supposed future one, and many others regard moral values as the dictates of God or the state without regard to the consequences. That is how Rand described morality. I am not an Objectivist, however, and do not totally agree with Rand here. She was talking about moral culpability, meaning one is not morally, "guilty," of an act committed in ignorance. One is only guilty of a breach of moral principles if it is done knowingly or deliberately. Furthermore Rand believed one ought to judge the moral culpability of others per her famous dictum, "judge and be prepared to be judged." I do not believe it is anyone's perogative to pass moral judgement on anyone else. The only thing one can judge about others is what they actually say and do, their moral cupability is between themselves, their own mind, and reality. Randy (Regi's dead)