Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Wolf DeVoon]

Government just is.

The public pie-eating contest, told in today's headlines:

CNN -- The U.S. Navy has promoted Vice Adm. Michelle Howard to admiral, making her the first female four-star officer in the Navy's 236-year-history, the White House said Tuesday. Howard, who was the first African-American woman to command a Navy ship, will become vice chief of naval operations.

CNN -- For the second time in two years, the U.S. Navy is parting with one of its aircraft carriers for a penny. The Navy announced Thursday it's paying ESCO Marine of Brownsville, Texas, one cent to take the former USS Saratoga off its hands for dismantling and recycling. The Saratoga will follow the former USS Forrestal to dismantling in Texas. A third carrier, the former USS Constellation, is expected to meet a similar fate soon, according to a Navy statement.

St. Louis Business Journal -- Boeing Co. was awarded a $2 billion contract by the Department of Defense to deliver fighter aircraft to the U.S. Navy. The contract calls for Boeing to deliver 38 FA-18 fighter aircraft and 21 EA-18 Growler electronic warfare aircraft. (In combat they average 1.2 sorties each per day and cost $60,000 per hour to operate. 1,480 F/A-18A/B/C/D were built and deployed, and 80% have been scrapped for parts. The new F/A-18F "fly-away cost" fully equipped is $60.9 million per plane. This is considered cheap compared to other fighters, but sacrifices speed and range, no match for Russian MIGs.)

[Jonathan]

J.

I have finally realised you have no idea of what Objectivist epistemology and reason is: It's all logic, right? No, it isn't.

It IS all about logic, idiot! Objectivism identifies logic as being the core of the Objectivist Epistemology. It is the "art of non-contradictory identification." It is man's "proper method of cognition."

Rand wrote, "Logic is man’s method of reaching conclusions objectively by deriving them without contradiction from the facts of reality—ultimately, from the evidence provided by man’s senses."

She also wrote, "All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Peikoff wrote (with Rand's endorsement), "Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses. To reach the distinctively human level of cognition, man must conceptualize his perceptual data—and conceptualization is a process which is neither automatic nor infallible. Man needs to discover a method to guide this process, if it is to yield conclusions which correspond to the facts of reality—i.e., which represent knowledge. The principle at the base of the proper method is the fundamental principle of metaphysics: the Law of Identity. In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. This method is logic—“the art of non-contradictory identification.” (Atlas Shrugged.) Logic must be employed at every step of a man’s conceptual development, from the formation of his first concepts to the discovery of the most complex scientific laws and theories. Only when a conclusion is based on a non-contradictory identification and integration of all the evidence available at a given time, can it qualify as knowledge."

...and...

"The failure to recognize that logic is man’s method of cognition, has produced a brood of artificial splits and dichotomies which represent restatements of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy from various aspects. Three in particular are prevalent today: logical truth vs. factual truth; the logically possible vs. the empirically possible; and the a priori vs. the a posteriori."

Like Romanticism is the core of Objectivist aesthetics (which you didn't know a year ago) conceptualism is the core of Objectivist epistemology.

Logic is the process of conceptualism, dunce!

And Romanticism is NOT the core of the Objectivist aesthetics. Romanticism is merely the Objectivist ethical preference when judging art. Objectivism holds that Naturalist works can be properly judged to be aesthetically great, and that Romantic works can be properly judged to be aesthetically bad, and therefore Romanticism cannot be the core of the Objectivist aesthetics.

Did you understand what I just wrote? I know that you don't like logic, that you never practice it, and therefore you somehow insanely imagine that it's not the core of the Objectivist Epistemology, but you really should try it sometime. It would be nice if you could grasp the logic -- the art of non-contradictory identification -- that I just applied to your false statement about the core of the Objectivist aesthetics.

And "proof" of art?

No one has asked you for "proof of art." We've asked you to identify the "objective" method that you use in deciding which paintings are Romantic and which are not.

Mmm, how about seeing, experiencing and recognizing and knowing and thinking and...

"Examples"? If the abstractive theory is not persuasive enough - just what difference will practical examples make? I have mine, and it's for each person to find their own.

Well, at this point I'd say it's just curiosity about the irrational workings of your "mind."

I question how much you have actually fathomed about Rand's theory of art - everything you refer to is from second hand sources.

WTF? I quote Rand all the time, and I rarely quote second hand sources.

Here, I'll quote her right now:

"Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition."

...and...

"[Today we observe] two broad categories of art: Romanticism, which recognizes the existence of man’s volition—and Naturalism, which denies it."

Back to basics. Start with "Man's profound need of art lies in the fact..."#402

Agree, or disagree - but do it honestly, without the innuendo, smearing and sneering.

I did respond honestly! I honestly and correctly identified Kant as having identified Rand's notion of "man's need of art" long before she did. I presented proof of it. No innuendo, no smearing, no sneering. I also identified the fact of reality that Rand unknowingly made Kant's notion of the Sublime her personal aesthetic style. Those are facts, not smears.

That's the disingenuousness I meant - I've repeated myself in several ways, and you've either ignored the conceptual import of my explanation and my interpretation of Rand -or, called it "obedience" -or, criticized Rand (ineffectually). That I have said I deviate from Rand in lesser ways (on Naturalism), has meant nothing. This glaringly illustrates that you are a bad faith debater.

You haven't offered any "conceptual import." You've merely declared that your subjective interpretations of artworks are "axiomatic," and therefore that you don't have to prove anything. Heh.

J

[Jonathan]

Tony,

At least the above post comes closer to addressing issues than your usual, though I think that you do not have a handle on Rand's idea of "Romanticism"/"Naturalism." I strongly recommend re-reading the source.

So the photo doesn't display "volitional consciousness," in your opinion.

Will you let us in on the secret of some painting which does?

Ellen

Tony, whether he knows it or not, seems to be taking the position that "Romanticism" is not possible in the arts.

The problem seems to be that he begins by treating what Rand would call a "non-essential" as if it were an "essential," and then making mistake after mistake based on that misidentification of "essentials." In other words, rather than identifying Objectivism's view of "Romanticism" as art which presents man as possessing volition, and "Naturalism" as that which denies it, Tony mistakenly starts by falsely defining the essence of "Romanticism" as "life as it ought to be" and the essence of "Naturalism" as "life as it is," and then he stupidly concludes that anything which is depicted in an image that has ever happened in reality is "life as it is" and not "as it ought to be."

Since volition happens all the time in "ordinary, everyday life," therefore showing volition in an image must necessarily be classified as "life as it is" "Naturalism" by Tony's fucked up method, and the only other option of classification is not "Romanticism," but pure Fantasy -- the unreal, the impossible, that which cannot happen in real life.

Insanity.

J

[Jonathan]

Wolf is not a wolf "Pup"--he's a wolf's wolf (mostly bite and little bark--I can't tell you about the howl)

In post 422 he didn't bark or bite, but merely snarled/whimpered. He offered no substance in response to mine, and he didn't have the balls or integrity to retract his "calling bullshit." He's acting a lot like a pup. One who still pees like a bitch.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Government just is.

The public pie-eating contest, told in today's headlines:

(CNN) -- The U.S. Navy has promoted Vice Adm. Michelle Howard to admiral, making her the first female four-star officer in the Navy's 236-year-history, the White House said Tuesday. Howard, who was the first African-American woman to command a Navy ship, will become vice chief of naval operations.

(CNN) -- For the second time in two years, the U.S. Navy is parting with one of its aircraft carriers for a penny. The Navy announced Thursday it's paying ESCO Marine of Brownsville, Texas, one cent to take the former USS Saratoga off its hands for dismantling and recycling. The Saratoga will follow the former USS Forrestal to dismantling in Texas. A third carrier, the former USS Constellation, is expected to meet a similar fate soon, according to a Navy statement.

(St. Louis Business Journal) -- Boeing Co. was awarded a $2 billion contract by the Department of Defense to deliver fighter aircraft to the U.S. Navy. The contract calls for Boeing to deliver 38 FA-18 fighter aircraft and 21 EA-18 Growler electronic warfare aircraft to the U.S. Navy. (Do the arithmetic, that's $34 million per plane. In combat they averaged 1.2 sorties each per day.)

I have no way to judge the admiral's qualifications. For instance, what type of ship did she command for how long? On most navy ships no bullshit is allowed or tolerated. That would include all aircraft carriers and submarines. Regardless, a desk-bound 4 star is safer for all and sundry than commanding an aircraft carrier assuming she wasn't up to the captain's job.

Retired aircraft carriers need to go to scrap. Or sunk for artifical reefs. Or turned into museums. It's the Iowa class battleships that make me wonder.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf is not a wolf "Pup"--he's a wolf's wolf (mostly bite and little bark--I can't tell you about the howl)

In post 422 he didn't bark or bite, but merely snarled/whimpered. He offered no substance in response to mine, and he didn't have the balls or integrity to retract his "calling bullshit." He's acting a lot like a pup. One who still pees like a bitch.

J

Oh, my. Contretemps on top of contretemps.

--Brant

to badly paraphrase Rand: don't get nasty, get rational = no conflicts amongst men (this won't work with women; they're sooo emotional)

I've done all I can, I'm out of water and there's no hydrant: burn baby, burn!

[Jules Troy]

I bought a better paintbrush last week J!!

(Nikon D4s)

PS: I am renaming this thread "The energizer bunny!"

It keeps going and going... Lol

[Jonathan]

I bought a better paintbrush last week J!!

(Nikon D4s)

Are you serious? Did you rob a frickin bank?

I'm experiencing the Objectivist virtue of envy, you bastard.

Post some awesome high-res images of low-light action, please! Pretty please!

J

[Jonathan]

Here's some additional information regarding Tony's two main points of confusion:


First, I found an even better quote from Rand on the essence of "Romanticism" and its defining characteristic:

"Following the rule of fundamentality, it is as a volition-oriented school that Romanticism must be defined — and it is in terms of this essential characteristic that the nature and history of Romantic literature can be traced and understood."

And, second, I think that reminding Tony of this quote from Rand might be helpful:

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

In other words, Objectivism holds that one is not to judge whether or not the artist has presented "life as it ought to be" according to Tony's standards, nor according to Rand's or mine or any other viewer's, but only according to the artist's. The artist's work is to be categorized and judged based on how well he projects characters pursuing his kind of values, regardless of whether or not those values are rational or consistent with Objectivist values. If he paints a band of violently brave viking warriors choosing to expand their tribe into an empire via the brutal initiation of force, his work is "Romanticism" by Rand's meaning, regardless of the fact that Tony, Rand and I would not agree that he presents an imaginary world which portrays life as we think it "ought to be." Our opinions of how life "ought to be" have no bearing on how his work should be categorized according to Objectivism.

Artists who presented visions with which Rand disagreed were nevertheless categorized by her as "Romanticist" -- they did not present "life as it ought to be" according to her standards, but only according to their own.

Do you understand, Tony?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Would Ayn understand?

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Make

NIKON CORPORATION

Model

NIKON D4S

Shutter Speed

1/2000 second

Aperture

F/4.0

Focal Length

300 mm

ISO Speed

720

Date Taken

Jun 30, 2014, 5:46:45 PM

Software

Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows

Sensor Size

12mm

http://jestephotography.deviantart.com/art/Female-House-Sparrow-465015047

Noise free at 720 ISO and better quality /tonal range than my old camera at 100 iso! I will be posting some shots at 3200-6400 ISO soon. They are unbelievably clear

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't feel my envy, I can ramp it up!

--Brant

or I can ramp it down (I take PayPal [it's a living!])

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's some additional information regarding Tony's two main points of confusion:

First, I found an even better quote from Rand on the essence of "Romanticism" and its defining characteristic:

"Following the rule of fundamentality, it is as a volition-oriented school that Romanticism must be defined and it is in terms of this essential characteristic that the nature and history of Romantic literature can be traced and understood."

That quote touches on something I want to get into, maybe on a separate thread. The "something" is Rand's invented view of the "essential characteristic" of Romanticism and her sloppiness about the history of literature.

On that later. First I want to address the following.

And, second, I think that reminding Tony of this quote from Rand might be helpful:

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artists philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artists theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys iti.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

In other words, Objectivism holds that one is not to judge whether or not the artist has presented "life as it ought to be" according to Tony's standards, nor according to Rand's or mine or any other viewer's, but only according to the artist's.

I think that there you are mixing up two different senses of judging, judgment of artistic quality as an art work - how well or poorly an art work is done - and judgment of moral merit. The passage you quote comes from the short section of "Art and Sense of Life" which I think is the only place where Rand discusses judgment of artistic merit.

Everywhere else she makes numerous judgments of moral worth, and, no, she didn't say in regard to moral judgment that the artist's standards of ethics are the criterion. She took her standards of ethics as the criterion

[bold emphasis added]

The artist's work is to be categorized and judged based on how well he projects characters pursuing his kind of values, regardless of whether or not those values are rational or consistent with Objectivist values. If he paints a band of violently brave viking warriors choosing to expand their tribe into an empire via the brutal initiation of force, his work is "Romanticism" by Rand's meaning, regardless of the fact that Tony, Rand and I would not agree that he presents an imaginary world which portrays life as we think it "ought to be." Our opinions of how life "ought to be" have no bearing on how his work should be categorized according to Objectivism.

Artists who presented visions with which Rand disagreed were nevertheless categorized by her as "Romanticist" -- they did not present "life as it ought to be" according to her standards, but only according to their own.

Again, no, she didn't say that art works are to be categorized according to how well or not the artist shows people pursuing the artist's values, but on whether or not the artist exhibits values as pursuable. Agreed with the rest. The characters might be pursuing values of which Rand didn't approve, and the work could still be "Romanticism" according to Rand. (For example, Dostoevsky's work.) But I don't think that Tony would disagree, so I'm not understanding what point you're making there in regard to Tony's views.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

And Romanticism is NOT the core of the Objectivist aesthetics. Romanticism is merely the Objectivist ethical preference when judging art. Objectivism holds that Naturalist works can be properly judged to be aesthetically great, and that Romantic works can be properly judged to be aesthetically bad, and therefore Romanticism cannot be the core of the Objectivist aesthetics.

Same issue as in the above post. The "merely." Ethical preference is what Rand was after. Esthetic judgment - good and bad in execution - is the "merely," almost an afterthought mentioned in passing.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

And Romanticism is NOT the core of the Objectivist aesthetics. Romanticism is merely the Objectivist ethical preference when judging art. Objectivism holds that Naturalist works can be properly judged to be aesthetically great, and that Romantic works can be properly judged to be aesthetically bad, and therefore Romanticism cannot be the core of the Objectivist aesthetics.

Same issue as in the above post. The "merely." Ethical preference is what Rand was after. Esthetic judgment - good and bad in execution - is the "merely," almost an afterthought mentioned in passing.

Ellen

Rand at her core was a moralizer. That was how she experienced herself. That is what she wanted to be.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

The characters might be pursuing values of which Rand didn't approve, and the work could still be "Romanticism" according to Rand. (For example, Dostoevsky's work.) But I don't think that Tony would disagree, so I'm not understanding what point you're making there in regard to Tony's views.

Ellen

I think that Tony's position might be, and very likely is, that he disagrees that characters pursuing values of which he and Rand disapprove can be classified as "Romanticism." Based on his previous statements about his just looking at the art and using "the evidence of his senses" to know what it means and how it should be categorized, and his refusal to explain further or directly answer our direct questions, as well as his insane misinterpretations of what you and I have been saying (his putting words into our mouths and coming up with irrational, illogical nonsense out of nowhere), I think that he does define "Romanticism" as art which presents life as it ought to be as defined by Objectivism, not as defined by each individual artist, and he believes that that is how Rand defined it.

He seems to think that a work of art must present a consistently Objectivist vision in order to be "Romanticist." I think that's why he has had such a tough time in the past dealing with the issue of Roark's immorality in The Fountainhead. He has fought against my pointing out the reality of what the novel contains. He refuses to see reality. I think it's because he has accepted The Fountainhead as "Romantic," and therefore he needs to deny or downplay or twist reality so that the novel can remain classified as "Romanticism." He needs to employ double standards of both judgment and classification. That's why he won't explain his methods: he doesn't want us to be able to apply his own stated and clearly defined methods of judgment or classification to Rand's art.

But I don't know for sure, and I don't even know if Tony knows for sure from one minute to the next. His mind is a fucking mess. He's one of the most confused and irrational people I've ever encountered.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn 't call The Fountainhead "romanticism." I'd call it "Nietzsche comes to America."

--Brant

Rand then got "moral" with Atlas Shrugged and even more so with Objectivism, but I loved the pirate

[anthony]

Here's some additional information regarding Tony's two main points of confusion:

First, I found an even better quote from Rand on the essence of "Romanticism" and its defining characteristic:

"Following the rule of fundamentality, it is as a volition-oriented school that Romanticism must be defined and it is in terms of this essential characteristic that the nature and history of Romantic literature can be traced and understood."

That quote touches on something I want to get into, maybe on a separate thread. The "something" is Rand's invented view of the "essential characteristic" of Romanticism and her sloppiness about the history of literature.

On that later. First I want to address the following.

And, second, I think that reminding Tony of this quote from Rand might be helpful:

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artists philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artists theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys iti.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

In other words, Objectivism holds that one is not to judge whether or not the artist has presented "life as it ought to be" according to Tony's standards, nor according to Rand's or mine or any other viewer's, but only according to the artist's.

I think that there you are mixing up two different senses of judging, judgment of artistic quality as an art work - how well or poorly an art work is done - and judgment of moral merit. The passage you quote comes from the short section of "Art and Sense of Life" which I think is the only place where Rand discusses judgment of artistic merit.

Everywhere else she makes numerous judgments of moral worth, and, no, she didn't say in regard to moral judgment that the artist's standards of ethics are the criterion. She took her standards of ethics as the criterion

[bold emphasis added]

The artist's work is to be categorized and judged based on how well he projects characters pursuing his kind of values, regardless of whether or not those values are rational or consistent with Objectivist values. If he paints a band of violently brave viking warriors choosing to expand their tribe into an empire via the brutal initiation of force, his work is "Romanticism" by Rand's meaning, regardless of the fact that Tony, Rand and I would not agree that he presents an imaginary world which portrays life as we think it "ought to be." Our opinions of how life "ought to be" have no bearing on how his work should be categorized according to Objectivism.

Artists who presented visions with which Rand disagreed were nevertheless categorized by her as "Romanticist" -- they did not present "life as it ought to be" according to her standards, but only according to their own.

Again, no, she didn't say that art works are to be categorized according to how well or not the artist shows people pursuing the artist's values, but on whether or not the artist exhibits values as pursuable. Agreed with the rest. The characters might be pursuing values of which Rand didn't approve, and the work could still be "Romanticism" according to Rand. (For example, Dostoevsky's work.) But I don't think that Tony would disagree, so I'm not understanding what point you're making there in regard to Tony's views.

Ellen

Half right, half wrong. Rand liked Dostoevsky for his "superb mastery of plot structure and his merciless dissection of the psychology of evil, even though his philosophy AND his sense of life are almost diametrially opposed to mine..."

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist's philosophy is irrelevant to an Aesthetic appraisal of his work qua art".

You are confusing the aesthetic assessments, with moral evaluation and moral values.

We've already had the hierarchy of aesthetic-cognitive-normative brought up here.

I think "aesthetics" is the stumbling point++. The initial examination and a possible appreciation, is of the artwork's mastery of stylization, composition, colours, technique, etc etc. i.e. Its aesthetics.

Only THEN, its 'content'. "Their own" standards (the artists') have nothing (at that stage) to do with an objective moral evaluation of the PICTURE by viewers; we are not mind-readers and can only see what's there, in actuality.

Romanticism cannot be just any old values, "pursuable" or not: it is specific :-

For man's life, for man's mind, for his achievement of goals, for a knowable universe.

Culminating in the essential statement "a being with volitional consciousness".

So OF COURSE an artwork can't be Romanticist if the artist's view of existence shown, is against Rand's - or any Objectivist's - rational morality. Otherwise, Romanticism is pretty meaningless, weak, and anything goes. "Life as it should be" - to an altruist-collectivist (or anti-mind, or determinist, or whatever) artist, is a case in point: as far as it goes, his view is valid -- but obviously, it is the moral distinction that matters totally.

++["The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics--a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally"] 'Art and Sense of Life'.

[Jonathan]

Half right, half wrong. Rand liked Dostoevsky for his "superb mastery of plot structure and his merciless dissection of the psychology of evil, even though his philosophy AND his sense of life are almost diametrially opposed to mine..."

Rand didn't just "like" Dostoevsky, but also judged him to be a great artist, and categorized him as a Romanticist. Not only that but she rated him as one of the two greatest Romanticists. Uh-oh! You didn't know that, did you? Now what? How are you going to evade that information?!!!

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist's philosophy is irrelevant to an Aesthetic appraisal of his work qua art".

You are confusing the aesthetic valuation with a moral evaluation and values.

No, that's what you're doing, Tony: confusing aesthetics with morality. Rand treated Romanticism as an aesthetic category in which characters are shown pursuing THEIR values. You have somehow mistaken her to mean that, in order for a work of art to be classified as Romantic, they must be pursuing specifically your and Rand's values. In other words, you're imposing your ethics on what is supposed to an aesthetic classification.

So OF COURSE an artwork can't be Romanticist if the artist's view of existence shown is against Rand's - or any Objectivist's - rational morality.

So, when Rand spoke of the Romanticists, you're saying that she was wrong to classify them as such? Or are you saying that there were Romanticists who agreed with Objectivist morality prior to the existence of Objectivism? Why did Rand explicitly categorize Dostoevsky as one of the two greatest Romanticists despite the fact that she stated that "his philosophy and his sense of life" were "almost diametrially opposed" to hers?

Or else, Romanticism is pretty meaningless, weak, and anything goes.++

No, it's not meaningless and weak just because you're not bright enough to grasp its meaning. As for "anything goes," yes, that's Rand's notion of the nature of aesthetics qua aesthetics: the philosophy of aesthetics it is not about imposing one's own ethics on aesthetic judgments, or on aesthetic categorization.

["The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics--a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally"] 'Art and Sense of Life'.

That's hilarious. Rand's bitching about other philosophers' failures to identify specific principles to guide aesthetic evaluation while not daring to do so herself, and while bluffing and blustering while sweeping it under the rug. The subject is "outside the scope of this discussion"? Heh. In the realm of true philosophy, it is the ONLY thing that is germane to the discussion; everything else is bluff and bluster. Posing as if one has a better solution than that offered by "modern philosophy" isn't at all the same thing as actually offering the solution. Actually, it's more of an Ellsworth Toohey move. Sure, some philosophers have probably failed when it came to attempting to establish principles of aesthetic evaluation, but at least they tried, which is more that what Rand did.

J

[Brant Gaede]

A "science of esthetics" is an oxymoron. Here are some more science ofs of the same ilk: astrology, psychology, sociology, economics, English, French, police work, sailing, philosophy, driving, medicine, piloting, war, bingo, robbery, investing, seduction, horse-back riding, selling, murder, house-cleaning, etc. Science has to do with the investigation of natural phenomena, not people, save as people impact natural phenomena, using reason and "many instruments" to collect and reconcile data.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

A "science of esthetics" is an oxymoron. Here are some more science ofs of the same ilk: astrology, psychology, sociology, economics, English, French, police work, sailing, philosophy, driving, medicine, piloting, war, bingo, robbery, investing, seduction, horse-back riding, selling, murder, house-cleaning, etc. Science has to do with the investigation of natural phenomena, not people, save as people impact natural phenomena, using reason and "many instruments" to collect and reconcile data.

--Brant

Yes, applying science to aesthetics would result in the conclusion that aesthetic judgment/interpretation is largely subjective; it necessarily contains so much subjective preference that it can never be considered to be objective (even though it may contain elements of objectivity). Rand's desperately wanting to believe that her every thought and taste and preference was objective wasn't a rational basis upon which to make her claim that objective evaluations of art qua art are possible. Her wishing didn't make it so, and wishing is all that she offered.

J

[anthony]

AESTHETIC : Dictionary.com

Adjective:

1. Pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the philosophy of aesthetics.

2.Of or pertaining to the study of the mind or emotions in relation to the sense of beauty; or of relating to the science of aesthetics.

3.Having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.

4. Pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation, as opposed to pure intellectuality.

Noun:

5. The philosophical theory or set of principles governing the idea of beauty at a given time or place.

Archaic:

6. The study of the nature of sensation.

-------------

Note "science of aesthetics" - not Rand's invention, then.

Consider which definition of aesthetics she deliberately used.

Obviously, Romanticism embraces more than aesthetics, as beauty, alone - no matter that this is how she is misrepresented by J.

[anthony]

J. I have no time for anybody who puts taunts and personality attacks above ideas.

With Ellen and Brant, there has been honest examination, albeit critical.

Your toxic behavior stifles what could have been a valuable discussion, and there's no excuse for it.

I will say with certainty that we three have reached further understanding despite your efforts at sabotage.

[Brant Gaede]

Back to Newberry, Jonathan.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

AESTHETIC : Dictionary.com

Adjective:

1. Pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the philosophy of aesthetics.

2.Of or pertaining to the study of the mind or emotions in relation to the sense of beauty; or of relating to the science of aesthetics.

3.Having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.

4. Pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation, as opposed to pure intellectuality.

Noun:

5. The philosophical theory or set of principles governing the idea of beauty at a given time or place.

Archaic:

6. The study of the nature of sensation.

-------------

Note "science of aesthetics" - not Rand's invention, then.

My point was that Rand didn't take a scientific approach to aesthetics, but rather an irrational approach of starting with a predetermined conclusion and trying to force reality to fit it. She ended up with self-contradictions and double standards. That's what happens when you try to label subjective tastes and interpretations as "objective." It's what happens when you deny the reality of the nature of aesthetic response.

Consider which definition of aesthetics she deliberately used.

Rand invented her own definition of "esthetics." She misidentified it as being limited to "the study of art." It is much more than that.

Obviously, Romanticism embraces more than aesthetics, as beauty, alone - no matter that this is how she is misrepresented by J.

I haven't claimed that aesthetics is "beauty, alone," nor have I claimed that Rand thought that aesthetics was all about beauty. Beauty was not essential to Rand's concepts of art and aesthetics. She barely touched on the idea of beauty, and treated it as an afterthought. The most that she said on the subject was off the top of her head during a Q&A session in which she gave a bunch of half-baked, subjective opinions which don't hold up to intelligent criticism. Her personal aesthetic style was that of Kantian Sublimity. She was all about the Sublime, not the Beautiful.

J