Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Newberry]

Thorn, In the end you're advising the same independence to Newberry that he articulated another way.

But a good tie-in with thinking and ideas. There is "advice" that is intended to destroy confidence in one's mind. There is "critique" that is performed with the best of all motives. Separating them is the tricky part.

ah you beat me to it Tony.

[Newberry]

Here, let me provide some quotes from the OO discussion that I mentioned which Ninth and I had with that blithering idiot Miovas.

Here's a link to the thread. What a doozy.http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/23118-kant-and-aesthetics/&page=1

I'm afraid what Tony wrote (1610) falls in the category of "not even wrong".

Possibly. And probably the only logical response to 'not even right' by Kant. ;)

Still, I eagerly anticipate being shown how right he was.

In post 1551 I gave a wonderful example of how right Kant was, by showing Newberry experiencing the Kantian Sublime in response to the 9/11 attacks:

Your essay Terrorism and Postmodern Art is a great example of a study in dumb and unaware.

In the essay, while attempting to vilify Kant's notion of the Sublime, you inadvertently and unknowingly admit to your own pride of having experienced the Kantian Sublime in reaction to the 9/11 attacks!!!

Here's what you wrote in that essay:

"On the other side of humanity, a vast majority of people felt universal shock. Waves of anger, sorrow, and sadness have followed. Though, personally, after I experienced the shock of the attack, I felt none of those other emotions. Instead a quiet calm spread over me and I knew it was a time for cold, calculating, and uncompromising action and thought. A time to expose evil and put it in its place. And a time to stand up proudly and defend the values of civilization against the onslaught of a species of human beings that romanticize destruction."

You don't understand it, in fact you refuse to understand it, but what you wrote in that quote is exactly what the experience of the Kantian Sublime is! You proudly felt your will to resist this thing of great magnitude and terror which was a "shock" and "beyond comprehension," and you felt that it was time to stand up for your values, or, as Kant said, "regard your estate as exalted above" the terrifying phenomenon. And you did so while imagining that you were rejecting Kant. Dumb.

Kant starts at some stratospheric level in his mind and declares things to be so, which he alone sees. What a refreshing contrast is Objectivist theory which begins at the most fundamental basics and layers on top of those.

No, dum-dum, Kant was a professional philosopher, and he started with the expectation that he was addressing other professional philosophers who were up to speed and informed about the history of the concepts that he was discussing. He wasn't addressing idiot philosophical hobbyist Rand zealots who refuse to study the history of the concepts.

It is not true that "he alone sees" what he was talking about. Everyone sees it, except for a few moronic Rand followers. It's really not that hard or "stratospheric." In order to not get it, one pretty much has to be opposed to getting it. One has to be predetermined to misrepresent, vilify and hate Kant (and to unknowingly engage in the collateral damage of vilifying previous philosophers who took essentially the same position).

J

My apologies for bringing up again a well hashed topic. I will try frame it in a fresher way.

My take on Kant, in the past and present, is that he believes that the Sublime is centered on fortitude (victimhood), violated imagination, and experiences of displeasure. And that its means can be formless. He thinks that these are ideal states, the Sublime, and we should strive towards those states as the ultimate in human experience. He doesn’t talk of overcoming those states to achieve flourishing, gratitude, or happiness. I think he is wrong.

(He discusses Concepts of Beauty, which involves art proper, and he is excellent in discussing it. For him the Concepts of the Sublime are beyond art, which is fine, but I hold that his Concepts of Sublime overrode C of B as aesthetic theory.)

The other point is the phenomenon of Postmodern Art. It is also centered displeasure, disruption, violence, and victimhood and using unconventional formless means. In past articles, and lectures I have made connections between Postmodern Art and Kant’s Concepts of the Sublime.

The importance of aesthetic theory, especially concerning ideals of the Sublime, is that it can become a road map either leading to a culture of violence and victimhood, or to one of optimism. So for all of you take a moment to think about what have been your greatest states of experience, and your hopes for what you would like to experience. Do they involve displeasure or some form of delight?

[Jonathan]

I kick my shoe:

Where are my genitals:

My back is broken:

I had an orgasm, and not only are my genitals missing, but I have knocked over the lamp:

My head is a turnip:

After looking at the above images again, and after seeing Newbsie continue to tout his "credentials" and attempt to look down his nose, such as here:

Funny, by your posts and works it doesn't seem you have taken art history courses, or even fine art classes.

...he's got me interested in where he learned (or should I say mislearned?) anatomy, coloration, perspective, etc. From whom did he take "fine art's classes"?

Well, looking online, it appears that most of his education happened under modernist Edgar Ewing, which wouldn't have helped with realist anatomy, coloration or perspective. And it appears that he also then attended the Free Academy in The Hague which, according to Newbsie, "offered no instruction but they did have live model drawing 9 hours a day six days a week." So, apparently Newbsie doesn't have much, if any, formal educational background in realist drawing and painting techniques from teachers who were practitioners of realism. It's looking as if he is self-taught, while pretending not to have been (at least on this thread).

If so, I guess that would explain some of the clumsiness we've seen in his learning process over the years.

(Incidentally, has Wikipedia changed its requirements? I thought that, back during the Valliants' shenanigans of trying to sock puppet edit things at Wikipedia, the requirements were that information had to come from legitimate outside sources, and not from one's own websites, quotes from one's friends on one's website, one's self-published works, or from small-fry self-publishing advocacy groups with which one associates and which have no scholarly standards for whom they will publish. I thought that Wikipedia tried very hard to prevent that ol' boys club kind of stuff of people posing as being deserving of having a Wiki page. And btw, where is Newbsie's modernist mentor Edgar Ewing's Wiki page?!!!)

Anyway, the Wiki page on Newbsie says that "Starting around 1980 Newberry began incorporating realism..."

This was after his "formal education." So, again, it appears that Newbsie's knowledge of representational realist drawing and painting is largely self-taught. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one isn't trying to pretend to be "credentialed."

J

P.S. Speaking of "around 1980," I remember that organizations which were associated (or somewhat associated) with Rand at the time were pushing prints of Sylvia Bokor's paintings in their mailings. Bokor seemed to have Rand's approval/blessing/sanction. Her painting Kicking Up Her Heels was one of the images that was touted as being properly Objectivist.

Yippy! Tee hee hee! I'm naked and laughing just like Howard Roark! This is how life "ought to be!"

Newbsie's I Kick My Shoe reminds me a lot of it.

[Jonathan]

My apologies for bringing up again a well hashed topic. I will try frame it in a fresher way.

If you want to frame it in a fresher way, then the way to do that would be to address the proof that has been presented against your position, not to ignore it once again and repeat your same old falsehoods.

My take on Kant, in the past and present, is that he believes that the Sublime is centered on fortitude (victimhood)

WTF? Hahahaha! So, in your Rand-twisted brain, when you see Kant use the word "fortitude," you somehow take it to mean "victimhood"?!!! Words mean whatever you want them to mean? Heh. Fortitude means strength and firmness in facing difficulty! It's the opposite of "victimhood," you silly, hateful fool!

...violated imagination, and experiences of displeasure.

Yes. Those things play a part in stimulating the Sublime reaction of our will to resist and overcome them. That's what the Sublime has always meant, INCLUDING LONG BEFORE KANT CAME ALONG!!!!!!!

Yet you've got a hard on for Kant, and only for Kant! Why? Why is Kant the villain in your eyes, and not Burke or Shaftesbury or Longinus?

There is no rational answer. The answer is that Rand instructed you to hate Kant, so that is the order that you will obey.

And that its means can be formless.

Yes, that which stimulates the Sublime may indeed be formless, like the gray formless masses of the threatening societies in Rand's novels which the heroes resist!!!!!!!!

He thinks that these are ideal states, the Sublime, and we should strive towards those states as the ultimate in human experience. He doesn’t talk of overcoming those states to achieve flourishing, gratitude, or happiness. I think he is wrong.

Why are you lying?!!! Kant DOES talk of overcoming those states! I provided you with three quotes in which he does so!

(He discusses Concepts of Beauty, which involves art proper, and he is excellent in discussing it. For him the Concepts of the Sublime are beyond art, which is fine, but I hold that his Concepts of Sublime overrode C of B as aesthetic theory.)

You're incapable of reading anything rationally. Your Rand-programmed hatred twists everything around in your mind.

The other point is the phenomenon of Postmodern Art. It is also centered displeasure, disruption, violence, and victimhood and using unconventional formless means. In past articles, and lectures I have made connections between Postmodern Art and Kant’s Concepts of the Sublime.

The importance of aesthetic theory, especially concerning ideals of the Sublime, is that it can become a road map either leading to a culture of violence and victimhood, or to one of optimism. So for all of you take a moment to think about what have been your greatest states of experience, and your hopes for what you would like to experience. Do they involve displeasure or some form of delight?

Yes, we're all well aware of your past acts of pigheadedly, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Kant's views, and of your idiotic attempts to connect those misrepresentations to your misrepresentations of postmodernism.

There's nothing "fresh" about your continuing to repeat all of that stupidity. You're not "framing" it in a new way. You're just denying the same realities, over and over again. The only thing new now is that you're starting to claim that words mean their opposite -- "fortitude" now has to mean "victimhood" because one of the quotes that I provided from Kant included the word "fortitude." Hahahaha!!!!

J

[Jonathan]

Possibly. And probably the only logical response to 'not even right' by Kant. ;)

Still, I eagerly anticipate being shown how right he was.

Right, meaning what? Are you saying that the experience Kant describes is something you've never had? That no one's ever had? Or that's somehow wrong/evil if they have? Or that's wrong/evil for an artist to strive for?

That reminds me of my having asked "Matus1976" similar questions on the A Few Kant Quotes thread.

He had objected to the standard meaning of the concept "Sublime" (after just having learned what it meant), and wanted the word to mean what he wanted it to mean.

In reply, I asked:

That's fine with me. I think that the word selection is irrelevant. I'd prefer that people address substance rather than semantics. If you want to protect the word "sublime," then okay, I won't use it when discussing the substance: When someone is standing at the edge of a black, bottomless pit, and she experiences a massive sense of horror and incomprehension of magnitude, but she also feels that experiencing the horror and incomprehensible magnitude is supremely delightful, how would you go about explaining why she felt pleasure -- an uplifting, inspiring feeling of freedom and satisfaction -- in experiencing the horror and incomprehension?

Can you guess what his answer was? Heh:

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.

That's right, "mental problems!" All of the people who have ever experienced "terrors which delight," including long before Kant, did so because they had "mental problems." (Somehow Kant is responsible for causing people to enjoy such terrors prior to his birth).

I responded here by giving the examples of roller coasters and Turbo Drop towers as things that modern humans might experience as the "terror which delights." Matus1976 didn't respond. My guess is that he recognized the fact that he and many people he knows have enjoyed such delightful terrors, and their enjoyment of them wasn't caused by "mental problems."

I love my ever-growing collection of moronic Objectivish hatred of Kant.

J

[9thdoctor]

Right is always whatever is true to objective reality.

We're talking about an aesthetic experience. It's subjective. Example: as a child I might have experienced the final battle sequence of Flash Gordon as Sublime, but as an adult I see it as campy and comical. We're both "right" (child-me and adult-me).

What I was trying to establish is whether you've ever experienced the Sublime. And if not, can you at least demonstrate that you grasp the concept. No judgements please, just tell us what it means. Offer an example.

Kant's "universalizability" (which is what you seem to imply) is the justification I believe for his 'Categorical Imperative', and is many degrees off from objectivity.

You're pivoting to a central issue in ethics. I don't see the connection, and I certainly didn't try to make one. I take you to be saying universalizability in ethics is false, if so, it's a topic for another thread. And you're wrong.

Have an experience, or don't have it, or ten people see the same thing and respond ten ways; but man's metaphysical nature is what is unvarying and constant.

Again, no connection I can discern to the topic at hand. Metaphysical nature, as in Man has eyes, ears, nose, and throat so...what?

"An experience", in all its Sublimity, is not the foundation for art as such, that I can honestly tell.

What's this "foundation for art as such" business? Kant is describing an experience that some art succeeds in communicating to us. Nature too. Have you had it? Was there something wrong with that experience?

However, it could very well be what a specific artist expresses or attempts to depict in a specific artwork.

The choice of an artist to do what he wants is no less than any individual freedom.

Evil? who said evil? That's what J. does.

Isn't the impetus for this whole discussion the claim that Kant's Sublime is the inspiration for modern (meaning bad/evil) art?

[anthony]

Right is always whatever is true to objective reality.

We're talking about an aesthetic experience. It's subjective. Example: as a child I might have experienced the final battle sequence of Flash Gordon as Sublime, but as an adult I see it as campy and comical. We're both "right" (child-me and adult-me).

Aesthetic experience is "subjective"?

Not by me. Beauty is not a subjective value - or "universal" - distinct from Kant. An emotion isn't subjective. "An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards".AR

Subjective, is when emotion dictates to reality, or to one's standards, I'd say.

I've argued that a rational man selecting a car or a wife, is making a 'personal' judgment, based on objective facts and his values, not a 'subjective' one. (Your conceptual knowledge and rationality when a child, and as an adult, is miles apart).

"Universal" and its various derivatives is not only apparent in Kant's morality. It's sprinkled all through Kant's Aesthetics too.

One excerpt from Stanford U:

"Judgments of beauty have, or make claim to, "universability" or "universal validity" (Kant also uses "universal communicability")".

And again, objectivity is a far different concept.

As for man's metaphysical nature meaning he has "eyes, ears" etc.(!) You know from Objectivism that man's consciousness has an identity, right? You know what 'meta' means.

Sure. I've had what Kant would call "Sublime" experiences. The last I recall was when I was in an enormous open-cast mine.

Awe-inspiring, wondrous - it was an emotion in response to something ("... to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by [my] standards"). But that emotion, or others, as base for an entire theory of art, that is subjective.

[Newberry]

"...your Rand-twisted brain... you silly, hateful fool!...you've got a hard on for Kant...Rand instructed you to hate Kant...Why are you lying?!!! ...You're incapable of reading anything rationally....your Rand-programmed hatred twists ...past acts of pigheadedly, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Kant's views, and of your idiotic attempts.. your continuing to repeat all of that stupidity...denying..."

J

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." ; )

[Newberry]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

[Wolf DeVoon]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

Is that a joke, or what?

[Wolf DeVoon]

An emotion isn't subjective ... a rational man selecting a car is making a 'personal' judgment, based on objective facts

Here you go, sweetie, an app to read your emotions and build a perfect car.

http://www.cnet.com/news/bentleys-app-builds-perfect-car-facial-recognition/

[9thdoctor]

Aesthetic experience is "subjective"?

Not by me. Beauty is not a subjective value - or "universal" - distinct from Kant. An emotion isn't subjective. "An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards".AR

Subjective, is when emotion dictates to reality, or to one's standards, I'd say.

I've argued that a rational man selecting a car or a wife, is making a 'personal' judgment, based on objective facts and his values, not a 'subjective' one. (Your conceptual knowledge and rationality when a child, and as an adult, is miles apart).

I can't follow what you mean when you use the word "subjective". Please concretize. First you say "an emotion isn't subjective", then subjective is "when emotion dictates to reality"; you see the problem there, I hope.

I say child-me experienced this as Sublime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa_p9Up9DFg

Adult-me sees cliché piled on cliché, with double cheese on top. Not Sublime. Is only one reaction "objective"? Then what's the other? I say both are "right", and that's possible (i.e. not a contradiction) because aesthetic experiences are subjective.

"Universal" and its various derivatives is not only apparent in Kant's morality. It's sprinkled all through Kant's Aesthetics too.

One excerpt from Stanford U:

"Judgments of beauty have, or make claim to, "universability" or "universal validity" (Kant also uses "universal communicability")".

And again, objectivity is a far different concept.

Kant acknowledges that we feel that our aesthetic experiences (or judgements) ought to be shared by others, but that there's no guarantee that they will. That's the closest he comes to what you're saying.

As for man's metaphysical nature meaning he has "eyes, ears" etc.(!) You know from Objectivism that man's consciousness has an identity, right? You know what 'meta' means.

Again, I don't get the connection to the topic at hand.

Sure. I've had what Kant would call "Sublime" experiences. The last I recall was when I was in an enormous open-cast mine.

Awe-inspiring, wondrous - it was an emotion in response to something ("... to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by [my] standards"). But that emotion, or others, as base for an entire theory of art, that is subjective.

Again, "base for an entire theory of art", where are you getting that from? I suppose Kant's writing on the Sublime may be his best known (most cited) contribution to aesthetics, but it's not a hierarchical base. Like (in Objectivism) needing to validate egoism before rights, and rights before capitalism. It's more like a conclusion than a premise.

[Brant Gaede]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

Is that a joke, or what?

It's a worthless statement. Proof in ideas is a metaphor for a mathematical proof but is only evidence of something logically rendered. Deductively rendered it is absolutely demonstrated but the problem with that is all the excluded data. That's why Rand's reasoning was so powerful for she argued from principles and justified those principles by the data used not excluded. This meant she used a hidden tautology. Thus Objectivism got stuck with selfishness not adequately corrected with "rational self interest" for the me, me, me in a human being actually includes thee, thee, and more thees. It also got Objectivism stuck in political utopianism so beloved by libertarians. If you want to understand why the philosophy is so binary, there it is.

Objectivisam works best in the metaphysics and epistemology for the axiomatic and other derived reasoning is contained in one brain. Someone can demonstrate your bad reasoning but can't reason for you. Instead you see the light using your own rational process. It's essentially not social or complicated.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Objective reality" is redundant. Used in context it can mean reality is objectively knowable, but that's not the way Greg the subjectivist uses it. If he dropped "objective" and just used "reality" all his convoluted reasoning--reasoning so called--would have to be dropped on the table (floor?) as silly. That's because he'd have to simply say reality is unknowable or not. It's a coverup to say objective reality is unknowable (how to objectively know this?) for everyone thinks to the contrary, even Greg. So take off the objective and there goes the subjective. Subjectivity has its place, but it's not this place.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

"...your Rand-twisted brain... you silly, hateful fool!...you've got a hard on for Kant...Rand instructed you to hate Kant...Why are you lying?!!! ...You're incapable of reading anything rationally....your Rand-programmed hatred twists ...past acts of pigheadedly, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Kant's views, and of your idiotic attempts.. your continuing to repeat all of that stupidity...denying..."

J

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." ; )

Indeed! So, in what way did Kant scorn you so as to have stirred up such fury in you? It's very personal to you! It's a blinding, irrational rage. What's the cause of it?

J

[anthony]

"Objective reality" is redundant. Used in context it can mean reality is objectively knowable, but that's not the way Greg the subjectivist uses it. If he dropped "objective" and just used "reality" all his convoluted reasoning--reasoning so called--would have to be dropped on the table (floor?) as silly. That's because he'd have to simply say reality is unknowable or not. It's a coverup to say objective reality is unknowable (how to objectively know this?) for everyone thinks to the contrary, even Greg. So take off the objective and there goes the subjective. Subjectivity has its place, but it's not this place.

--Brant

Yes, quite: it's like pounding a last mighty blow on an already driven nail, a bad habit from recently talking some basic philosophy with somebody..

[Jonathan]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

Are you trying to kind of do philosophy again while not accepting responsibility for it at the same time?

J

[Brant Gaede]

"...your Rand-twisted brain... you silly, hateful fool!...you've got a hard on for Kant...Rand instructed you to hate Kant...Why are you lying?!!! ...You're incapable of reading anything rationally....your Rand-programmed hatred twists ...past acts of pigheadedly, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Kant's views, and of your idiotic attempts.. your continuing to repeat all of that stupidity...denying..."

J

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." ; )

Indeed! So, in what way did Kant scorn you so as to have stirred up such fury in you? It's very personal to you! It's a blinding, irrational rage. What's the cause of it?

J

It's love to hate imitating Rand. It's ironical that to boost up the power of philosophy in human endeavor Rand had to boost up Kant to have a mighty figure to knock down with her mighty Objectivism in that she hung her philosophy on the impotence of evil theme. Philosophy however, is essentially biological cognitively driven by choice or free will. Everybody has a philosophy and there is to be found the real power, not intellectualizations that may or may not match up in whole or in part. What feeds this basic philosophy are all the Liberal Arts understandings from person to person, culture to culture and its mostly backwards looking. Sometimes formal philosophy can lead a bit and empower a lot which is what happened with natural rights philosophy first in Britain then the United States at it's founding.

Rand used her attitude and positions respecting philosophy as ego food to spur her productivity. She didn't need it so much as she needed it for her magnum opus and the follow through until she passed away. Ego maintains our blood pressure so we don't collapse. We naturally over-value our areas of interest simply because there's where we find the most value.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

"...your Rand-twisted brain... you silly, hateful fool!...you've got a hard on for Kant...Rand instructed you to hate Kant...Why are you lying?!!! ...You're incapable of reading anything rationally....your Rand-programmed hatred twists ...past acts of pigheadedly, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Kant's views, and of your idiotic attempts.. your continuing to repeat all of that stupidity...denying..."

J

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." ; )

Indeed! So, in what way did Kant scorn you so as to have stirred up such fury in you? It's very personal to you! It's a blinding, irrational rage. What's the cause of it?

J

It's love to hate imitating Rand. It's ironical that to boost up the power of philosophy in human endeavor Rand had to boost up Kant to have a mighty figure to knock down with her mighty Objectivism in that she hung her philosophy on the impotence of evil theme.

--Brant

Yes! Rand, and Newbsie, and many of her other little helpers need to constantly experience the Sublime! In order to get their fix of Kantian Sublimity, they need to manufacture a villain whose destructive power of influence is of such magnitude as to reach the state of formlessness, and of such terror that it stokes their will to resist with great fortitude, to overcome, and to regard their estate as exalted above it. Kant is the imagined terror that allows them to delight in themselves.

Most people don't need to be vicious when wanting to experience the Sublime. They don't feel the need to make ghosts and devils of real people. They just visit a chasm or waterfall. It takes a very deep and special addiction to Kantian Sublimity to need a dosage larger than what reality can supply. And look what happens when I place reality between the addict and his drug of choice!

The saddest thing of all is that inventing the fantasy terror and privately believing it themselves isn't enough for them to delight in their heroic will to resist and overcome. No. They're so weak that they also need our adoration of their heroic struggle against the imagined monster. They need to try to make us believe in its destructive power so that we will also delight in their heroism. It's as if they think that our believing it along with them will make it real.

J

[Newberry]

The saddest thing

J

...is you are not for anything. You think your ideas are concrete facts; introspection is not your thing, nor psychology; you are not a professional fine artist, nor musician; you are not a lecturer, nor a writer; you are not teacher. The only thing you have going for you is that you are a polemicist, not a good one. It would help if you valued anything. It is like you are trying to beat the shit out of air.

“Do not open your heart to evil. Because—if you do—evil will come…Yes, very surely evil will come…It will enter in and make its home within you, and after a little while it will no longer be possible to drive it out.” Poirot, Death on the Nile.

[Wolf DeVoon]

J: "...would be to address the proof..."

You know there is no proof in the realm of ideas?

Is that a joke, or what?

It's a worthless statement. Proof in ideas is a metaphor for a mathematical proof but is only evidence of something logically rendered.

I guess we're pretty far apart in theory of knowledge with natural language (not a metaphor for math or set theory).

Say, for instance, that you are at a birthday party with a number of others. You decide to count the number attending the party: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But eight units of what? – of men and women, boys and girls. You could have also said that there were eight "people" at the party, but children aren't quite the same as adults, and therefore we habitually count them as members of a different class. Likewise, it is customary and useful to distinguish between male people and female people, referring to them respectively as "men" and "women" on the doors of segregated rest rooms. Not so many years ago, it was customary to distinguish between caucasians and negroes, referring to them respectively as Whites and Colored on the doors of segregated rest rooms.

Whether we prefer to call someone a "woman", a "female", a "negro", an "American", or a "person" is not the point. Rather, the point is that predicates are inescapable, when you count persons, things, or values. To predicate something (P) of something else (Q) is to identify an attribute or quality that makes unit Q a member of class P:

Wolf is a person.

Socrates is musical.

All deer are ruminants.

Some birds cannot fly.

In discussing my theory of value, we will need to accept as axiomatic that a class subsumes and refers to all of the units or members of that class, and that it is impossible for a predicate to be both true and false at the same time. This impossibility is known as a contradiction. [COGGIG, p.25]

[Jonathan]

The saddest thing

J

...is you are not for anything.

False. I'm for reality. You are opposed to it.

Your idea that I'm not for anything is another of your hateful fantasies designed to make you feel good about yourself.

You think your ideas are concrete facts;

Are you stating that as a concrete fact? Heh. Clown.

...introspection is not your thing...

Wrong. But, anyway, introspection is your only thing. It's why you run into so much trouble: you try to emotionally "introspect" your way through history and philosophy. Reflecting on your feelings isn't a good way to do history, which is why your introspections end in disaster.

...nor psychology...

Oh, I'm very good at psychology. I've got you pegged. You're a hater, and haters are easy to read.

...you are not a professional fine artist, nor musician...

Actually I am a professional fine artist (in the fields of painting, sculpture, photography, and digital art), and, although I'm currently not working as a musician, I was professionally employed as one for decades.

That's reality. It's time to grown up, Newbsie, and get beyond your hate fantasies of everyone being so much less than you.

...you are not a lecturer...

Nor are you. Well, I guess you're kind of a pretend lecturer. Fellow Rand-followers uncritically publish your unscholarly opinions and give you a podium from which to preach to the converted. Actually, by those standards, I'm also a lecturer, since I've spoken to small groups of friends and like-minded folks at meetings put on by little organizations that I'm involved with.

...nor a writer...

Professionally? I've been paid to write occasionally. I have about the same credentials as you do. I just don't pretend that publishing my own writing, or having friends do so uncritically, makes me a writer. I live in reality, and don't have any need for the type of fantasies that you obviously desperately cling to.

...you are not teacher.

I have taught people how to play guitar. That's about on the same level as your teaching bored housewives how to paint, no? Oops, should I have said that I "mentored" people on guitar? Makes it sound so much more important!

The only thing you have going for you is that you are a polemicist, not a good one.

I'm an extremely good polemicist, which is why you're going on the personal attack rather than answering the proof that I've provided of your falsehoods and your stubborn stupidity.

It would help if you valued anything.

I value reality, and very much so. My persistence in revealing what a reality-denying fool you are is an example of how dedicated I am to valuing reality.

It is like you are trying to beat the shit out of air.

That's actually a description of what you're doing with Kant. You're attacking a phantom that you conjured up in order to believe that you're being heroic. It's sad that you have to derive self-worth from such silliness.

“Do not open your heart to evil. Because—if you do—evil will come…Yes, very surely evil will come…It will enter in and make its home within you, and after a little while it will no longer be possible to drive it out.” Poirot, Death on the Nile.

Good quote, and good advice! You should heed it. Evil has made its home in you. It has made you hateful and irrational. It has made you value your hatreds over reality. It has made you reject and deny proof of your errors. Drive that evil out before it's too late! Swallow your irrational pride, and practice the virtue of admitting to and amending your errors!

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

I'm sure he said something interesting and crappy as usual.

[Jonathan]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Jonathan.

I'm sure he said something interesting and crappy as usual.

No, actually it was some friendly, solid advice. Very constructive criticism.

J

[Newberry]

The saddest thing

J

...is you are not for anything.

False. I'm for reality. You are opposed to it.

Your idea that I'm not for anything is another of your hateful fantasies designed to make you feel good about yourself.

You think your ideas are concrete facts;

Are you stating that as a concrete fact? Heh. Clown.

...introspection is not your thing...

Wrong. But, anyway, introspection is your only thing. It's why you run into so much trouble: you try to emotionally "introspect" your way through history and philosophy. Reflecting on your feelings isn't a good way to do history, which is why your introspections end in disaster.

...nor psychology...

Oh, I'm very good at psyhology. I've got you pegged. You're a hater, and haters are easy to read.

...you are not a professional fine artist, nor musician...

Actually I am a professional fine artist (in the fields of painting, sculpture, photography, and digital art), and, although I'm currently not working as a musician, I was professionally employed as one for decades.

That's reality. It's time to grown up, Newbsie, and get beyond your hate fantasies of everyone being so much less than you.

...you are not a lecturer...

You're not either. Well, I guess you're kind of a pretend lecturer. Fellow Rand-followers uncritically publish your unscholarly opinions and give you a podium from which to preach to the converted. Actually, by those standards, I'm also a lecturer, since I've spoken to small groups of friends and like-minded folks at meetings put on by little organizations that I'm involved with.

...nor a writer...

Professionally? I've been paid to write occasionally. I have about the same credentials as you do. I just don't pretend that publishing my own writing, or having friends do so uncritically, makes me a writer. I live in reality, and don't have any need for the type of fantasies that you obviously desperately cling to.

...you are not teacher.

I have taught people how to play guitar. That's about on the same level as your teaching bored housewives how to paint, no? Oops, should I have said that I "mentored" people on guitar? Makes it sound so much more important!

The only thing you have going for you is that you are a polemicist, not a good one.

I'm an extremely good polemicist, which is why you're going on the personal attack rather than answering the proof that I've provided of your falsehoods and your stubborn stupidity.

It would help if you valued anything.

I value reality, and very much so. My revealing what a reality-denying fool you are is an example of how dedicated to valuing reality I am.

It is like you are trying to beat the shit out of air.

That's actually a description of what you're doing with Kant. You're attacking a phantom that you conjured up in order to believe that you're being heroic. It's sad that you have to derive self-worth from such silliness.

“Do not open your heart to evil. Because—if you do—evil will come…Yes, very surely evil will come…It will enter in and make its home within you, and after a little while it will no longer be possible to drive it out.” Poirot, Death on the Nile.

Good quote, and good advice! You should heed it. Evil has made its home in you. It has made you hateful and irrational. It has made you value your hatreds over reality. It has made you reject and deny proof of your errors. Drive that evil out before it's too late! Swallow your irrational pride, and practice the virtue of admitting to and amending your errors!

J

Can you confirm any of that stuff by a link, website, or reference? Or do you only want us to take your word?