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

[9thdoctor]

Regardless of inclination.

It's a meme which continues into Kant's moral philosophy, later on.

This thread is bloated enough, IMO if you want to talk Kantian ethics you ought to start a new thread in the Ethics forum.

[Brant Gaede]

It's actually beyond salvation unless it goes back to Ellen's initial post on K and esthetics.

Maybe Mr. Sanctimonious will come back and try another "little experiment."

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Maybe Mr. Sanctimonious will come back and try another "little experiment."

If he does come back, I'd like to see him bring along with him the people whose friendships he cites as providing him with "credentials." I have questions for them and their agreement with and/or willingness to publish Newbsie's opinions. I'd be especially interested in having the opportunity to freely question world-renowned philosopher Stephen Hicks outside of his "safe space" echo chamber (where reality is not allowed), as well as the universe's leading vision scientist Jan Van Krinkledink or whatever. I'd like to know how geniuses of their stature overlooked some very obvious and elementary mistakes that Newbsie has made.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I deliberately stopped studying the Objectivist catechism in the early 1970s, but I never had proper clarity as to my motive until this thread. It has to do with those then and since swept up in it who also don't study it and never had any real intention to. They just wanted to be in that powering Objectivist world not knowing they were depowering themselves as individuals. There is no intellectual force from within Objectivism. There used to seem to be from Rand and Branden but that was their force, not the force from "students of Objectivism." "It is your job to tell people that Objectivism is. It is our job to tell them what it is." Such an approbation may have had a legitimate, narrowing focused justification in the 1960s, but it's intellectual lead and doesn't begin to travel.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Insofar as I understand the Sublime, contemplation of existence itself in its unknowable totality must be to experience it--no? What most people don't get is non-existence is only an abstraction. It literally doesn't exist. Attributes of existence constantly change their forms. When we die consciousness goes out of existence, but not into a true state of non-existence which is merely that same abstraction. Chemicals remain. Existence is infinite even if the universe as we know it isn't. We don't know if the overlapping is complete and I doubt we ever will. The reason for the infiniteness of existence is there is nothing we know to contain it and if there was what contains that container? It's not nothing; there is no nothing. Thus Barbara Branden could once be quoted, "There is no first cause."

--Brant

[anthony]

_________________________

** -- one of this forum's much-discussed writers has twice attempted to get at the sublime:

“I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.

[...]

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one's life.

A nice example to distinguish between Kant's Sublime and Rand's "sublime", is that here Rand refers with foreknowledge and prior value to the New York skyline. She knew conceptually the genesis of the buildings which comprise it, the ideas, skills and dedication to reality which constructed each of them, and evidently saw it as the height of human purpose, free will and self-interest. It is that which was admirable to her mind, the minds of men which achieved the feats.

Understanding, identifying and value-judging the "fact" of the skyline - knowing the cause of its creation - were apparently the cause of her emotion, the effect, of "the sublime in human nature".

[Jonathan]

** -- one of this forum's much-discussed writers has twice attempted to get at the sublime:

“I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.

[...]

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one's life.

A nice example to distinguish between Kant's Sublime and Rand's "sublime"...

The contrast that you're making in regard to the above is not really between "Kant's Sublime" and "Rand's 'sublime.'"

Rather, the contrast is between the historically established philosophical concept of the Sublime which existed long before Kant, and, on the other side, a sort of cognitively blurry layman's notion of a vague, undefined and shifting something, with the word "sublime" attached to it.

Rand never addressed the philosophical issue of the Sublime. She did occasionally use the word "sublime" when describing things, but she didn't quite have a handle on what she meant, and she used different meanings. She wasn't a student of the philosophy of aesthetics proper, and, as is true of most of her followers, there's no reason to believe that she was even aware of the fact that there was a philosophical concept of the Sublime. In fact, there are reasons to believe that she was completely oblivious to the existence of the concept and its long history.

J

[Selene]

Aristotle did not address the sublime. His only section of his Poetics referenced "catharsis:"

A tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having a magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories. . . with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of these emotions. [Aristotle, De Poetica, (1449b24-28), translated by Ingram Bywater. In Introduction to Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon, (New York: The Modern Library, 1947), p. 631.]

This to my knowledge is not connected to the Kantian sublime, although some rhetorical critics keep trying to round hole square peg everything prior to Kant into his definitions.

This gentleman below does pick up on Loginus' work whose favorite philosopher was Plato.

However, Kant, the 'transcendental Idealist,' is setting out to refashion Burke's theory of the sublime in such a way that he can refute its empiricism. In order to do this, Kant proposes that the sublime involves the recognition of this 'supersensible' dimension in human Reason, the recognition that we have a power within us that transcends the limits of the world as given to us by our senses. This supersensible dimension of the mind, Reason itself, is what is properly speaking sublime. What should be seen as sublime are not the objects in nature which have beenup to this point associated with sublimity - they are in fact merely formless, horrific, chaotic, and hardly deserving of such a noble epithet - but the powers of Reason to which the mind will turn when confronted with them. As Kant writes:

the sublime, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be contained in any sensuous form, but rather concerns ideas of reason, which, although no adequate presentation of them is possible, may be excited and called into the mind by that very inadequacy itself which does admit of sensuous presentation. Thus the broad ocean agitated by storms cannot be called sublime. Its aspect is horrible, and one must have stored one's mind in advance with a rich stock of ideas, if such an intuition is to raise it to the pitch of a feeling which is itself sublime – sublime because the mind has been incited to abandon sensibility and employ itself upon ideas involving higher finality. (SS.23)

Seems that he has it correct as far as I can tell.

http://www.lukewhite.me.uk/sub_history.htm

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

sublime because the mind has been incited to abandon sensibility and employ itself upon ideas involving higher finality

The first chicken hawk neocon in history, saw beauty in the death and mutilation of others for a "higher finality."

In 1981, James C. Thomson, a member of the National Security Council under President Johnson, finally concluded that our Vietnamese intervention had been motivated by a national missionary impulse, a 'need to do good to others.' In a phrase that cannot be improved, he and others called this 'sentimental imperialism.' [Loren Baritz, Backfire, quoted in COGIGG]

Probably also useful in pretending that Newberry's cartoonish figures are somehow Objectivist.

[Jonathan]

The first chicken hawk neocon in history, saw beauty in the death and mutilation of others for a "higher finality."

And? What does someone's seeing "beauty" in "death and mutilation" have to do with the discussion? The quote that you're responding to doesn't mean what you've apparently taken it to mean.

Probably also useful in pretending that Newberry's cartoonish figures are somehow Objectivist.

Oh, but Newbsie's contorted freaks are very Objectivist! His art is an example of what happens when Rand's followers attempt to impose her aesthetic rules and tastes onto visual art, and when they adopt the fantasy of being real life visual arts equivalents of Howard Roark. Objectivism in the visual arts is the practice of the artist announcing through his work that he possesses the explosively joyous, passionate, and proper "sense-of-life" that he is required to have as an Objectivist, via overtly visually signaling his internal state in his characters' external states -- through excessively artificially posed body language, and artlessly staged, unrealistic environments. That's Objectivist visual art 101.

J

[ThatGuy]

Aristotle did not address the sublime. His only section of his Poetics referenced "catharsis:"

A tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having a magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories. . . with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of these emotions. [Aristotle, De Poetica, (1449b24-28), translated by Ingram Bywater. In Introduction to Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon, (New York: The Modern Library, 1947), p. 631.]

This to my knowledge is not connected to the Kantian sublime, although some rhetorical critics keep trying to round hole square peg everything prior to Kant into his definitions.

This gentleman below does pick up on Loginus' work whose favorite philosopher was Plato.

However, Kant, the 'transcendental Idealist,' is setting out to refashion Burke's theory of the sublime in such a way that he can refute its empiricism. In order to do this, Kant proposes that the sublime involves the recognition of this 'supersensible' dimension in human Reason, the recognition that we have a power within us that transcends the limits of the world as given to us by our senses. This supersensible dimension of the mind, Reason itself, is what is properly speaking sublime. What should be seen as sublime are not the objects in nature which have beenup to this point associated with sublimity - they are in fact merely formless, horrific, chaotic, and hardly deserving of such a noble epithet - but the powers of Reason to which the mind will turn when confronted with them. As Kant writes:

the sublime, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be contained in any sensuous form, but rather concerns ideas of reason, which, although no adequate presentation of them is possible, may be excited and called into the mind by that very inadequacy itself which does admit of sensuous presentation. Thus the broad ocean agitated by storms cannot be called sublime. Its aspect is horrible, and one must have stored one's mind in advance with a rich stock of ideas, if such an intuition is to raise it to the pitch of a feeling which is itself sublime sublime because the mind has been incited to abandon sensibility and employ itself upon ideas involving higher finality. (SS.23)

Seems that he has it correct as far as I can tell.

http://www.lukewhite.me.uk/sub_history.htm

A...

Thank you for sharing this. While reading through it, I came across the Greek word for "sublime", as used by (or attributed to) Longinus, "hupsous", or "hypsos"...

When Michael Newberry proposed, some time back, to redefine the concept of "sublime" so as to exclude the part about "fear" or "terror", I proposed to look beyond the Kantian usage and go to the etymology, to see if the word itself could be used in that way. The etymology for "sublime" only somewhat suggested the idea of fear ("...that which is stately or imposing"):

sublime (adj.)

1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

But if we go back to Longinus, as Jonathan did suggest, back at the time of that discussion, and if we go to the word "hypsos", we get this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsos

Hypsos is a Greek philosophical concept considered comparable to the modern concept of the sublime, or a moment that brings oral speech to an astonishing and monumental pause. Its root hypso- literally means "aloft", "height", or "on high". However, a distinguishing feature of hypsos in rhetorical studies is that it combines conflicting emotions: fear and awe, horror and fascinations.^%5B1%5D It is a climactic moment in speech that generates uncertainty for the audience.

I do have to thank Jonathan, here, for the lead on Longinus and of the larger usage of the word beyond Rand's examples (it does appear, indeed, that she ignored the "fear" or terror-awe side of it, in the quotes listed earlier.)

The etymoloyy of "hypsos" implies "outside" or "above" one's self, a kind of ecstasy. Whether or not one can have that without some kind of fear and awe that is overcome, I'll leave that to the psychologists. But Jonathan has demonstrated that the concept HAS not just centered around beauty, but fear, awe, terror, and the overcoming of such, from the earliest known concept of it. It does not seem wise to ignore the dark part of the concept to simply mean outside one's self because of something beautiful, lest it delves into something like Rand's "tiddlywink" music: light, airy, without suffering, or just simply "beauty". Maybe another word is called for in Newberry's personal project; I don't know if "ecstasy' is enough, or too strong...but sublime seems to be wrong. I don't know if it's worth it to try to redefine "sublime" without the fear and terror vs. coming up with a new word, the way Rand kept "selfish" instead of another word; that's another argument...) If one did, would it still be "Sublime"?

I know that's what she tried to suggest with Halley's "Concerto of Deliverance" ("we never had to take any of it seriously, did we?), but he had to overcome all the obstacles to get to that point, so, it does demonstrate, again, Jonathan's point about ATLAS being demonstrative of Kant's sublimity.

Anyway, just thinking out loud, thanks for the food for thought. I'm looking forward to reading more about the topic, in general.

[Jonathan]

I do have to thank Jonathan...

You're welcome! Thank you for having the curiosity to follow up on the issue with your own research, and for thinking about it independently.

It does seem that the etymoloyg of "hypsos" implies "outside" or "above" one's self, a kind of ecstasy. Whether or not one can have that without somekind of fear and awe that is overcome, I'll leave that to the psychologists.

We don't have to leave it to the psychologists. Of course people can experience ecstasy without having it stimulated by some sort of fear or awe that is to be overcome.

No one has suggested that ecstasy, or exhilaration or whatever, can only be stimulated or achieved via Sublimity.

The philosophical inquiry into the Sublime came about simply because everyday people observed that they had experienced seemingly contradictory states when viewing certain things. They sought to resolve the apparent contradiction of why something which instilled in them a sense of fear or incomprehension could also, at the same time or almost the same time, cause them to experience a delightful rush of exaltation.

The concept didn't come about because some thinker was advocating the idea that there was only one way to stimulate exaltation in people.

J

[Brant Gaede]

sublime because the mind has been incited to abandon sensibility and employ itself upon ideas involving higher finality

The first chicken hawk neocon in history, saw beauty in the death and mutilation of others for a "higher finality."

In 1981, James C. Thomson, a member of the National Security Council under President Johnson, finally concluded that our Vietnamese intervention had been motivated by a national missionary impulse, a 'need to do good to others.' In a phrase that cannot be improved, he and others called this 'sentimental imperialism.' [Loren Baritz, Backfire, quoted in COGIGG]

Probably also useful in pretending that Newberry's cartoonish figures are somehow Objectivist.

It's partly to do with American cultural pioneering imperialism--essentially Christian--that goes back to Plymouth Plantation that expanded with American economic power that filled and then overflowed a continent's ability to handle the western expansionary impulse. Unlike the Bristish, Americans weren't very good at being a colonial power. The balance of European power so beloved by Britain imploded in the last century, but the moralistic America picked it up and got it over the goal line twice. However, after the end of WWII, because of its relative small size and socialism clawing the guts out of its people, Britian was essentially a basket case only slightly revived by the conservatives under Thachter. As for the United States, it has stalled out but its self-accepted responsibilities seem to be expanding, all exacerbated by foreign policy make war not love stupidity.

--Brant

[ThatGuy]

I do have to thank Jonathan...

You're welcome! Thank you for having the curiosity to follow up on the issue with your own research, and for thinking about it independently.

It does seem that the etymoloyg of "hypsos" implies "outside" or "above" one's self, a kind of ecstasy. Whether or not one can have that without somekind of fear and awe that is overcome, I'll leave that to the psychologists.

We don't have to leave it to the psychologists. Of course people can experience ecstasy without having it stimulated by some sort of fear or awe that is to be overcome.

No one has suggested that ecstasy, or exhilaration or whatever, can only be stimulated or achieved via Sublimity.

The philosophical inquiry into the Sublime came about simply because everyday people observed that they had experienced seemingly contradictory states when viewing certain things. They sought to resolve the apparent contradiction of why something which instilled in them a sense of fear or incomprehension could also, at the same time or almost the same time, cause them to experience a delightful rush of exaltation.

The concept didn't come about because some thinker was advocating the idea that there was only one way to stimulate exaltation in people.

J

Ah! I think you just filled in a missing piece of the puzzle for me, there, and simply put, at that.

Like I said, I still have a lot of reading to do, but if that is the case, above, then there really would be NO reason to subvert/redefine the term.

Thanks again.

[Selene]

Aristotle did not address the sublime. His only section of his Poetics referenced "catharsis:"

Hypsos is a Greek philosophical concept considered comparable to the modern concept of the sublime, or a moment that brings oral speech to an astonishing and monumental pause. Its root hypso- literally means "aloft", "height", or "on high". However, a distinguishing feature of hypsos in rhetorical studies is that it combines conflicting emotions: fear and awe, horror and fascinations.^%5B1%5D It is a climactic moment in speech that generates uncertainty for the audience.

I do have to thank Jonathan, here, for the lead on Longinus and of the larger usage of the word beyond Rand's examples (it does appear, indeed, that she ignored the "fear" or terror-awe side of it, in the quotes listed earlier.)

The etymoloyy of "hypsos" implies "outside" or "above" one's self, a kind of ecstasy. Whether or not one can have that without some kind of fear and awe that is overcome, I'll leave that to the psychologists. But Jonathan has demonstrated that the concept HAS not just centered around beauty, but fear, awe, terror, and the overcoming of such, from the earliest known concept of it. It does not seem wise to ignore the dark part of the concept to simply mean outside one's self because of something beautiful, lest it delves into something like Rand's "tiddlywink" music: light, airy, without suffering, or just simply "beauty". Maybe another word is called for in Newberry's personal project; I don't know if "ecstasy' is enough, or too strong...but sublime seems to be wrong. I don't know if it's worth it to try to redefine "sublime" without the fear and terror vs. coming up with a new word, the way Rand kept "selfish" instead of another word; that's another argument...) If one did, would it still be "Sublime"?

I know that's what she tried to suggest with Halley's "Concerto of Deliverance" ("we never had to take any of it seriously, did we?), but he had to overcome all the obstacles to get to that point, so, it does demonstrate, again, Jonathan's point about ATLAS being demonstrative of Kant's sublimity.

Anyway, just thinking out loud, thanks for the food for thought. I'm looking forward to reading more about the topic, in general.

Excellent post.

Your should study Rhetoric it seems to be a comfortable area for you.

Are you a student?

A...

[anthony]

** -- one of this forum's much-discussed writers has twice attempted to get at the sublime:

“I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.

[...]

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one's life.

A nice example to distinguish between Kant's Sublime and Rand's "sublime"...

The contrast that you're making in regard to the above is not really between "Kant's Sublime" and "Rand's 'sublime.'"

Rather, the contrast is between the historically established philosophical concept of the Sublime which existed long before Kant, and, on the other side, a sort of cognitively blurry layman's notion of a vague, undefined and shifting something, with the word "sublime" attached to it.

Rand never addressed the philosophical issue of the Sublime. She did occasionally use the word "sublime" when describing things, but she didn't quite have a handle on what she meant, and she used different meanings. She wasn't a student of the philosophy of aesthetics proper, and, as is true of most of her followers, there's no reason to believe that she was even aware of the fact that there was a philosophical concept of the Sublime. In fact, there are reasons to believe that she was completely oblivious to the existence of the concept and its long history.

J

One may over-elaborate the word-concept until it connotes more than it denotes, and takes on a mystique. "Sublime" isn't the property of anybody, let alone Kant and antecedent philosophers

Rand tended to know the precise meanings of words she used - she defintely had a handle on what she meant. As I do in reading it. She might have said "exalted" almost equally.

My early-50's Concise Oxford defines 'sublime', "a. Of the most exalted kind, so distinguished by elevation or size or nobility or grandeur or other impressive quality as to inspire awe or wonder, aloof from and raised far above the ordinary, (~mountain, scenery, tempest, ambition, virtue, heroism, selfsacrifice, love, thought, beauty, genius, beauty, poet, etc)."

It's well known that Rand 'borrowed back' and reclaimed words that previously had quasi-religious connotations. (Worship, reverent, sanctity, sacred, spirit, soul). Concepts that were created by men, used by men, for men...and in the absence of god, about man.

Whether she knew of Kant's Sublime or not (I can't see how not) or its precedents, she used the word accurately here.

So, she "never addressed the philosophcal issue of the Sublime" most likely because she already constantly revered and advocated man's mind and reason, and didn't recognize sublimity as a philosophy in its own right.

[ThatGuy]

Aristotle did not address the sublime. His only section of his Poetics referenced "catharsis:"

Hypsos is a Greek philosophical concept considered comparable to the modern concept of the sublime, or a moment that brings oral speech to an astonishing and monumental pause. Its root hypso- literally means "aloft", "height", or "on high". However, a distinguishing feature of hypsos in rhetorical studies is that it combines conflicting emotions: fear and awe, horror and fascinations.^%5B1%5D It is a climactic moment in speech that generates uncertainty for the audience.

I do have to thank Jonathan, here, for the lead on Longinus and of the larger usage of the word beyond Rand's examples (it does appear, indeed, that she ignored the "fear" or terror-awe side of it, in the quotes listed earlier.)

The etymoloyy of "hypsos" implies "outside" or "above" one's self, a kind of ecstasy. Whether or not one can have that without some kind of fear and awe that is overcome, I'll leave that to the psychologists. But Jonathan has demonstrated that the concept HAS not just centered around beauty, but fear, awe, terror, and the overcoming of such, from the earliest known concept of it. It does not seem wise to ignore the dark part of the concept to simply mean outside one's self because of something beautiful, lest it delves into something like Rand's "tiddlywink" music: light, airy, without suffering, or just simply "beauty". Maybe another word is called for in Newberry's personal project; I don't know if "ecstasy' is enough, or too strong...but sublime seems to be wrong. I don't know if it's worth it to try to redefine "sublime" without the fear and terror vs. coming up with a new word, the way Rand kept "selfish" instead of another word; that's another argument...) If one did, would it still be "Sublime"?

I know that's what she tried to suggest with Halley's "Concerto of Deliverance" ("we never had to take any of it seriously, did we?), but he had to overcome all the obstacles to get to that point, so, it does demonstrate, again, Jonathan's point about ATLAS being demonstrative of Kant's sublimity.

Anyway, just thinking out loud, thanks for the food for thought. I'm looking forward to reading more about the topic, in general.

Excellent post.

Your should study Rhetoric it seems to be a comfortable area for you.

Are you a student?

A...

Thank you. No, not a student, just a layman.

[ThatGuy]

** -- one of this forum's much-discussed writers has twice attempted to get at the sublime:

“I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.

[...]

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one's life.

A nice example to distinguish between Kant's Sublime and Rand's "sublime"...

The contrast that you're making in regard to the above is not really between "Kant's Sublime" and "Rand's 'sublime.'"

Rather, the contrast is between the historically established philosophical concept of the Sublime which existed long before Kant, and, on the other side, a sort of cognitively blurry layman's notion of a vague, undefined and shifting something, with the word "sublime" attached to it.

Rand never addressed the philosophical issue of the Sublime. She did occasionally use the word "sublime" when describing things, but she didn't quite have a handle on what she meant, and she used different meanings. She wasn't a student of the philosophy of aesthetics proper, and, as is true of most of her followers, there's no reason to believe that she was even aware of the fact that there was a philosophical concept of the Sublime. In fact, there are reasons to believe that she was completely oblivious to the existence of the concept and its long history.

J

One may over-elaborate the word-concept until it connotes more than it denotes, and takes on a mystique. "Sublime" isn't the property of anybody, let alone Kant and antecedent philosophers

Rand tended to know the precise meanings of words she used - she defintely had a handle on what she meant. As I do in reading it. She might have said "exalted" almost equally.

My early-50's Concise Oxford defines 'sublime', "a. Of the most exalted kind, so distinguished by elevation or size or nobility or grandeur or other impressive quality as to inspire awe or wonder, aloof from and raised far above the ordinary, (~mountain, scenery, tempest, ambition, virtue, heroism, selfsacrifice, love, thought, beauty, genius, beauty, poet, etc)."

It's well known that Rand 'borrowed back' and reclaimed words that previously had quasi-religious connotations. (Worship, reverent, sanctity, sacred, spirit, soul). Concepts that were created by men, used by men, for men...and in the absence of god, about man.

Whether she knew of Kant's Sublime or not (I can't see how not) or its precedents, she used the word accurately here.

So, she "never addressed the philosophcal issue of the Sublime" most likely because she already constantly revered and advocated man's mind and reason, and didn't recognize sublimity as a philosophy in its own right.

In trying to find the quote from Newberry re: redefining "sublime", and mentioning Rand's reclaiming of "selfish" as radical ("to the root" of the concept), I was reminded of her use of the word "Anthem", a word she claimed from religious usage. But there, I note that she acknowledge the religious history explicitly in her explanation of the choice of title for the story.

[ThatGuy]

** -- one of this forum's much-discussed writers has twice attempted to get at the sublime:

“I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.

[...]

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one's life.

A nice example to distinguish between Kant's Sublime and Rand's "sublime"...

The contrast that you're making in regard to the above is not really between "Kant's Sublime" and "Rand's 'sublime.'"

Rather, the contrast is between the historically established philosophical concept of the Sublime which existed long before Kant, and, on the other side, a sort of cognitively blurry layman's notion of a vague, undefined and shifting something, with the word "sublime" attached to it.

Rand never addressed the philosophical issue of the Sublime. She did occasionally use the word "sublime" when describing things, but she didn't quite have a handle on what she meant, and she used different meanings. She wasn't a student of the philosophy of aesthetics proper, and, as is true of most of her followers, there's no reason to believe that she was even aware of the fact that there was a philosophical concept of the Sublime. In fact, there are reasons to believe that she was completely oblivious to the existence of the concept and its long history.

J

One may over-elaborate the word-concept until it connotes more than it denotes, and takes on a mystique. "Sublime" isn't the property of anybody, let alone Kant and antecedent philosophers

Rand tended to know the precise meanings of words she used - she defintely had a handle on what she meant. As I do in reading it. She might have said "exalted" almost equally.

My early-50's Concise Oxford defines 'sublime', "a. Of the most exalted kind, so distinguished by elevation or size or nobility or grandeur or other impressive quality as to inspire awe or wonder, aloof from and raised far above the ordinary, (~mountain, scenery, tempest, ambition, virtue, heroism, selfsacrifice, love, thought, beauty, genius, beauty, poet, etc)."

It's well known that Rand 'borrowed back' and reclaimed words that previously had quasi-religious connotations. (Worship, reverent, sanctity, sacred, spirit, soul). Concepts that were created by men, used by men, for men...and in the absence of god, about man.

Whether she knew of Kant's Sublime or not (I can't see how not) or its precedents, she used the word accurately here.

So, she "never addressed the philosophcal issue of the Sublime" most likely because she already constantly revered and advocated man's mind and reason, and didn't recognize sublimity as a philosophy in its own right.

In trying to find the quote from Newberry re: redefining "sublime", and mentioning Rand's reclaiming of "selfish" as radical ("to the root" of the concept), I was reminded of her use of the word "Anthem", a word she claimed from religious usage. But there, I note that she acknowledge the religious history explicitly in her explanation of the choice of title for the story. I don't recall, though, that it was meant to be "radical" in the sense of reclaiming the word, and she didn't change the meaning, but simply put it into a secular context.

What Newberry proposed with the concept "sublime" was NOT to "reclaim" it, but to "update it...

(continued)

[ThatGuy]

(continued from last post):

Newberry's proposal to UPDATE the concept of "sublime":

I think it would be nice for the concept of the sublime to be updated for man made things and leave off the fear component as the thing, and replace that with something like wonder or an ascendent elevated feeling. Works that fit with my view of the sublime are:

Aeschylus' Oresteia. A young man overcoming insanely adverse circumstances to be justly reprieved in the end by the by the new code of justice in the new democracy of Athens.

Michelangelo's David. The moment of being ready for great things to come.

Puccini's Turnadot. Amazing synergy of inventive orchestration, melody, chorus, two vying sopranos, and a glorious end in which love is victorious.

Beethoven's Ninth. Ode to Joy.

Schipperheyn's Zarathustra. The moment when Zarathustra realizes the concept of free will.

Atlas Shrugged. The ultimate freedom and release of understanding and throwing off those that want to enslave you.

Rembrandt's Danae. A a moment of woman lit by the glow of her lover.

They all have the component of successful resolution at the end: the lovers unite, justice and freedom are served, and moments of wonder and bliss. And artists' means also match the the elevated ends of their works. Both the ends and means are in sync.

If it were obvious and easy to do there would be a lot more works on this scale. I think a positive and passionate view of the world is the hardest thing to achieve in art. Mainly because it is more demanding in the sense that it doesn't allow for mistakes yet requires startling execution.

I posted the etymology of the word itself, to see if it would support such an update:

Regarding the necessity of "fear" to invoke the sublime, and the proposal of removing the idea of fear from the concept, it might help for clarification, to go beyond Kant's usage by looking at the etymology of the word...("overcoming fear", while not directly mentioned, may be implied in the word "imposing", and, perhaps, "threshold"...)

sublime (adj.) 1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

He replied:

"Excellent suggestion.

I think this shows a good example of the divide between our everyday usage of the sublime as something wonderfully high vs. the creepy philosophical idea."

But that ignored the implications of the words "imposition" and "threshold", which would give the word a specific context and meaning beyond "exaltation." And that wasn't even looking at the earliest usage by Longinus...

Add to that Jonathan what Jonathan added: "The philosophical inquiry into the Sublime came about simply because everyday people observed that they had experienced seemingly contradictory states when viewing certain things. They sought to resolve the apparent contradiction of why something which instilled in them a sense of fear or incomprehension could also, at the same time or almost the same time, cause them to experience a delightful rush of exaltation....The concept didn't come about because some thinker was advocating the idea that there was only one way to stimulate exaltation in people."

To update the word "sublime", then, would not just be unnecessary (since "exaltation", or "ecstatic/ecstasy" would do just fine)...actually, it wouldn't even be an UPDATE; it's not expanding or adding (since it's already subsumed under a larger concept as a type of exaltation, maybe?)...it would actually be doing a dis-service by destroying the differentiation between those words/concepts. It would not be the equivalent of Rand reclaiming "selfish", or putting the religous concept of an "anthem" into a secular context (nothing is lost in that way), whereas the particular concept invoked in the sublime (the contradictary state of "the fear that delights") would be lost.

LOST.

Not just a concept lost, but an emotion REPRESSED, because someone interprets it as "philosophically creepy."

[anthony]

... and she didn't change the meaning, but simply put it into a secular context.

Yes, I am trying to say that it always was in "a secular context", is, and will be. Minds of men at their extent, experienced, say - "reverence". The object of that reverence usually was/is God. He had nothing to do with it since he doesn't exist. However the range possible to man's consciousness, his reason and emotion, shows he can conceptually embrace the ideas of nobility, exaltation (etc.), all man made ideas, inspired by man and what he makes, and aimed at existence as a whole.

(I think "the fear that delights" can't exist very long, as self contradictory. I believe emotions can and do coincide for a moment in a mind, but introspection and further identification of the reality will sort them out, and one will remain or both will dissipate).

[Jonathan]

To update the word "sublime", then, would not just be unnecessary (since "exaltation", or "ecstatic/ecstasy" would do just fine)...actually, it wouldn't even be an UPDATE; it's not expanding or adding (since it's already subsumed under a larger concept as a type of exaltation, maybe?)...it would actually be doing a dis-service by destroying the differentiation between those words/concepts. It would not be the equivalent of Rand reclaiming "selfish", or putting the religous concept of an "anthem" into a secular context (nothing is lost in that way), whereas the particular concept invoked in the sublime (the contradictary state of "the fear that delights" would be lost.

LOST.

Not just a concept lost, but an emotion REPRESSED, because someone interprets it as "philosophically creepy."

Bingo!

Newbsie is not doing philosophy, but merely pissing away his time -- decades of time -- with meaningless semantics based on nothing but his stubborn ignorance and his feelings.

If the word "sublime" is to have a different meaning than the experience that it has always signified, then what word should now be used to signify that long-identified experience? When people experience what has always been called the Sublime while viewing, say, the deluge of the reservoir gates opening on the Yellow River, like this:

...and they refer to their experiencing the Sublime from having witnessed it, and everyone on the fricking planet understands exactly what they mean (other than Newbsie, Tony, and a few other doofuses who have been fooled by Newbsie's posing as a scholar), what point is there in changing or "updating" the words that are used, and what word would Newbsie demand that they use instead of "sublime"?

Should there be no replacement word, and should everyone just ignore, deny and repress the experience of the "terror that delights" because Newbsie needs to believe that it's evil? Should the experience be blanked out and wiped from human existence just because a handful of hateful Objecti-zealot idiots don't get it?

Yeah, let's do that. Let's put total morons in charge of the language.

J

[Jonathan]

(I think "the fear that delights" can't exist very long, as self contradictory. I believe emotions can and do coincide for a moment in a mind, but introspection and further identification of the reality will sort them out, and one will remain or both will dissipate).

And that's what the great thinkers of the past did: They worked at it, and sorted out what appeared to be a contradiction. Kant explained it very clearly. The entity of great magnitude or destructive power stimulates our ability to reason and to get our minds around the entity, and to feel fortitude, and to regard our estate as exalted above it. That's what the pleasure part is: Our succeeding in grasping what seemed to be incomprehensible, and to feel our power to overcome.

See? What appeared to be a contradiction was resolved. It wasn't a contradiction after all!

Get it yet?

J

[Selene]

Again, as a Kantian neutral and only having read "selected slices" of an immense body of work, I did not assume Ayn's "understanding" of Kant was any more valid than her narrow opinions on music.

Now, here at OL, having done some due diligence, it is clear that Ayn was quite incorrect about his work.

A...

[9thdoctor]

To update the word "sublime", then, would not just be unnecessary (since "exaltation", or "ecstatic/ecstasy" would do just fine)...actually, it wouldn't even be an UPDATE; it's not expanding or adding (since it's already subsumed under a larger concept as a type of exaltation, maybe?)...it would actually be doing a dis-service by destroying the differentiation between those words/concepts. It would not be the equivalent of Rand reclaiming "selfish", or putting the religous concept of an "anthem" into a secular context (nothing is lost in that way), whereas the particular concept invoked in the sublime (the contradictary state of "the fear that delights" would be lost.

LOST.

Not just a concept lost, but an emotion REPRESSED, because someone interprets it as "philosophically creepy."

Writers subsequent to Kant came up with their own variations on the concept. It's not like he had the last word. Schiller, Hugo, and Schopenhauer are a few names to look up. Concepts are supposed to be open-ended.

So I wouldn't worry about some anti-Newspeak thoughtcrime, a banned concept of the Sublime, as though Kant's work is to be consigned to the flames when the Revolutionary Objectivist Total Freedom Liberators (ROTFL) seize control and de-nationalize the libraries. And put the collected writings of Newberry in their place. Redacted, as needed, to eliminate traces of Kant's actual ideas as might be reconstructed from his presentation (not that such redaction would take much effort).

Now, here at OL, having done some due diligence, it is clear that Ayn was quite incorrect about his work.

I'm agnostic on that. All we have is a one-liner from her, not remotely enough to reverse-engineer what she was thinking. There's a lot in Critique of Judgement. One thing's for sure, after his 50+ readings over many decades, Newberry sure hasn't figured it out.