Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[anthony]

My answer: A + B = A++

Heh. What in the hell does that mean?

So, then 9 + 1 does not equal 10, but equals 9++?

WTF?

J

A conceptual enumeration, J. Art is also about consciousness.

[Jonathan]

Try to make sense, Tony.

[anthony]

Try to see sense, J.

You understood perfectly the (conceptual) query I made about an ugly object styled beautifully. You chose to make of it a math formulation (A+B) - and I answered in kind. Now you say you don't understand your own formula or the concept. But there can only be a perceptual-conceptual approach to the effects of art on consciousness, empiricism has no place here.

"A + B = A++" represents the concept - "ugliness accentuated and glorified by beautiful stylization".

The meme throughout these discussions is of art inhabiting some plane 'above' existence, identity and consciousness. As if it claims a special exemption from the axioms. Consciousness is all-inclusive of emotionality and the subconsciousness --

what it 'does' in the identification, integration, evaluation (finding value for one's own purpose) applied to specific existents in art, and the consequent emotions (and any subconscious associations made) is its totality.

If art were spoken of in terms of individuals' emotions, that I can readily understand: I would only add that whether one knows it or not, ~which specific emotion~ always depends on one's view of existence, or premises (a la Rand) as much as the perceived nature of the examined artwork.

But it is a neo-mystical perception of art which finds its way in, that I can't understand. (And can, somewhat. The lasting effects of "sublimity" and "beauty" have a lot to answer for).

[Brant Gaede]

The discussion itself makes little sense. What happens contemplating looking at and and experiencing "art" happens. Putting correct labels on constituent parts neither adds to nor subtracts from the experience except maybe for constant, blocking and confusing "intellectual" churn.

What happens in Epistemology should stay in Epistemology, at least I hope so (we can't let it loose on humanity--the horror! the horror!)

The fall back is, what happens in OL . . .--absent that, everybody's fucked

[anthony]

An artist 'channels' (his experience of) reality, through his senses, thought and emotion, as much as anyone can or does - in his case, into his art. All one can do is honestly reciprocate by taking his word on it and returning the favour in kind, with senses, emotion and thought.

(It's the tacit perception that he can 'channel' some sort of mystical power or intuition unknowable to the rest of us, that I call bs).

[Jonathan]

I would only add that whether one knows it or not...

That's the unfalsifiabilty clause in the Objectivist Esthetics which makes it pseudoscience. No possible outcomes refute the proposed theory.

~which specific emotion~ always depends on one's view of existence, or premises (a la Rand) as much as the perceived nature of the examined artwork.

Bullshit. That theory doesn't hold up in reality. The only people who parrot it are those whose only exposure to aesthetics and art analysis/appreciation comes from Rand. Get out into the real world and observe real people responding to works of art. People who have all sorts of different "views of existence" and "senses of life" will often love the same work of art for the same reasons. They will have the same emotional reaction as many other people who have very different views. And all sorts of people with different views from all over the spectrum will also dislike that same artwork, and react to it with very negative emotions. Many will be indifferent, some will be unaware, unobservant and aesthetically inept, and some will prejudge it based on angry ideological theories which they don't apply consistently to all artists' work (Rand's, for example).

The fact that people CAN have responses to art based on their "views of existence" doesn't mean that they MUST, nor does it mean that you, Tony, can know or predict how anyone with a specific given "view of existence" will respond to a work of art. And, more importantly, your desire to use art as a Rorschach test and imagine that you can know their "views of existence," and how evil and deserving of your condemnation they are, is pure fantasy.

The theory is also anti-Objectivist, since it's pseudoscience. There's no proof to back it up, and it's set up so as to allow for no proof. "If you have view of existence Y, then you will love art X, even if you say that you don't; and If you like art X, then you have view of existence Y, whether you know it or not. We know you mind better than you do, based on our hearing what you like in art. We will not listen to your assertions and explanations to the contrary. They are rationalizations. They are just further proof of your depravity."

It's just the same old illogical, pseudoscientific methods of the witch trials.

But it is a neo-mystical perception of art which finds its way in, that I can't understand. (And can, somewhat. The lasting effects of "sublimity" and "beauty" have a lot to answer for).

You're the neo-mystic. You believe in all sorts of nonsense which contradicts reality, and you belive it because your God Ayn Rand told you to believe it. You abandon Objectivist Epistemology in favor of Rand's crazy-talk tantrums about art. You're incapable of proving your assertions, or even of defining your terms or identifying objective criteria. You're a fruitcake whimsical Rand-mystic.

J

[Brant Gaede]

An artist 'channels' (his experience of) reality, through his senses, thought and emotion, as much as anyone can or does - in his case, into his art. All one can do is honestly reciprocate by taking his word on it and returning the favour in kind, with senses, emotion and thought.

(It's the tacit perception that he can 'channel' some sort of mystical power or intuition unknowable to the rest of us, that I call bs).

Your conversations are not engaging.

I'd like to hear this kind or thing from an artist not someone imaging artist imaginings. Now, if you are an artist, okay, but put in some verisimilitude.

--Brant

[anthony]

evil ... condemnation - luckily I bore easily and switch off the rest. Unfalsifiabilty, that's a Popperism isn't it, in itself unfalsifiable.

Remember your emotions about Roark and your judgement of his villainy, J.

Your premises, you see, therefore feelings many other readers didn't share (I gather).

[Brant Gaede]

evil ... condemnation - luckily I bore easily and switch off the rest. Unfalsifiabilty, that's a Popperism isn't it, in itself unfalsifiable.

Remember your emotions about Roark and your judgement of his villainy, J.

Your premises, you see, therefore feelings many other readers didn't share (I gather).

I'd guess you are on your seventh cup of coffee, Tony.

--Brant

[anthony]

An artist 'channels' (his experience of) reality, through his senses, thought and emotion, as much as anyone can or does - in his case, into his art. All one can do is honestly reciprocate by taking his word on it and returning the favour in kind, with senses, emotion and thought.

(It's the tacit perception that he can 'channel' some sort of mystical power or intuition unknowable to the rest of us, that I call bs).

Your conversations are not engaging.

I'd like to hear this kind or thing from an artist not someone imaging artist imaginings. Now, if you are an artist, okay, but put in some verisimilitude.

--Brant

No, but they sure provoke!

I've had an 'in' with several artists for many years, friends of a good sculptor, and studied techniques from a photography angle, from way back.

Do I know the thought, sweat and tears that go into making honest art...?

Forget all the "Genius" stuff, these are tough-minded people who graft hard and think hard.

Nobody has to study art to philosophize about art. Nobody has to be an artist. If you see it, you can make the deductions.

[anthony]

evil ... condemnation - luckily I bore easily and switch off the rest. Unfalsifiabilty, that's a Popperism isn't it, in itself unfalsifiable.

Remember your emotions about Roark and your judgement of his villainy, J.

Your premises, you see, therefore feelings many other readers didn't share (I gather).

I'd guess you are on your seventh cup of coffee, Tony.

--Brant

Heh, a double espresso per day, that's my limit.

[Jonathan]

Re post #160

Dipshit, I didn't identify my feelings about Roark and the novel as a whole. I didn't give my over all appraisal. I identified only facts about the novel.

My "premises" have nothing to do with it. The novel contains the actions that I described. Someone's having different "premises" doesn't change the fact that Roark worked on the Courtlandt project against the will of the owners, actively hid his involvement, and lied about it. Those are facts of reality about the novel's contents, and not emotional or "sense of life" appraisals that I've made.

But, anyway, you just demonstrated my point. You made my case. You sought to condemn me and my "premises." You have no idea what my actual judgment of the novel is, or my emotional reaction to it, and you don't care to know. Instead, you've assigned me an emotional response and a view of existence which I don't have in reality.

You're an irrational clown who has bought into all of Rand's errors and irrational hatreds, while rejecting the valid aspects of her philosophy.

J

[Brant Gaede]

An artist 'channels' (his experience of) reality, through his senses, thought and emotion, as much as anyone can or does - in his case, into his art. All one can do is honestly reciprocate by taking his word on it and returning the favour in kind, with senses, emotion and thought.

(It's the tacit perception that he can 'channel' some sort of mystical power or intuition unknowable to the rest of us, that I call bs).

Your conversations are not engaging.

I'd like to hear this kind or thing from an artist not someone imaging artist imaginings. Now, if you are an artist, okay, but put in some verisimilitude.

--Brant

No, but they sure provoke!

I've had an 'in' with several artists for many years, friends of a good sculptor, and studied techniques from a photography angle, from way back.

Do I know the thought, sweat and tears that go into making honest art...?

Forget all the "Genius" stuff, these are tough-minded people who graft hard and think hard.

Nobody has to study art to philosophize about art. Nobody has to be an artist. If you see it, you can make the deductions.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

--Brant

the laxative worked (sorry, I couldn't resist; don't take it personally )

[anthony]

J.'s on a Red Bull drip.

[Brant Gaede]

[...] I didn't identify my feelings about Roark and the novel as a whole. I didn't give my over all appraisal. I identified only facts about the novel.

Roark worked for Keating. In fact, he did it starting in their college days thus sanctioning Keating's second-handerism. It also sanctioned Roark's own second-handerism as he put himself second to his work. Nietzschean superman thus became Nietzschean superwork. Roark subverting himself to his work was somewhat like--not nearly as bad, of course--as subverting oneself to the state. So both Rand and Hitler used Nietzsche for bad results, her being innocent and his being evil.

So, we have Roark and Keating, both parasites, ganging up on the governments parasites with Roark winning in court and Keating utterly destroyed--cast off as an old, used tissue. And Wynand was also gone. Roark wasn't destroyed because he sanctioned his own wrong and the wrong became a circularity. Well, actually, he never existed (neither did Dominique). Nor did Soviet man and nor did Nazi (super)man.

At the end of The Fountainhead Dominique ascends a mighty phallus revealed as the world's tallest skyscraper. She now belongs to the skyscraper. Poor Dominique. Roark too--not just Keating and Wynand--is now gone, evaporated, zilch; for the same reason. If he wasn't Rand would have ended the novel with something like, "Take off your clothes." (The hell with the building! Let's fuck!)

We end up with the irony of Rand championing individualism in politics and subservience in the soul. Naturally enough she demanded subservience in her followers. It's no accident she had/has followers. At least Roark followed his work. (So did Rand.)

--Brant

I never met a "superman" I couldn't wipe the floor with, although in Roark's case it took 50 years and several months)

[Jonathan]

We end up with the irony of Rand championing individualism in politics and subservience in the soul. Naturally enough she demanded subservience in her followers. It's no accident she had/has followers. At least Roark followed his work. (So did Rand.)

Exactly. Tony is the perfect example. He is Obedient to Rand.

J

[Jonathan]

Bump.

Still no answers to the following:

ugliness for the sake of ugliness, etc.?

Ugly or beautiful to whom?

Objectively define "beauty" and "ugliness." Provide objective criteria by which to measure beauty. I've challenged you to do so in the past, Roger. You evaded the challenge. It's time to quit bluffing. Demonstrate that judgments of beauty are objective, and that others "ought to" share your opinions of what is or is not beautiful.

Clearly identify what rational, objective standards and logical methods we are to use to determine which of two conflicting Objectivish aesthetic bossypantses is correct when both believe that their own judgments of beauty are the only truly Objective ones: if you and Kamhi disagree on a given object's being beautiful, and you're each as shrill and overbearing as the other in asserting how certain you are of the objective purity of your aesthetic tastes, by what rational, logical means would you propose that we objectively prove which of your judgments of beauty was correct?

... (Any of these things can be morally good if used not for their own sakes, but as a foil to happiness, constructiveness, beauty - just as the latter can be morally evil if used only as a foil to the triumph of evil.)

What objective method do you use to arrive at the conclusion that an artwork was intended to be ugly, versus that the artist might have different tastes in beauty than you do? What objective method do you use in concluding that he was using "ugliness for the sake of ugliness," versus that you, personally, may have failed to identify his purpose?

I've encountered many Objectivish-types who have asserted that a given artwork portrayed ugliness for the sake of ugliness, or other similar, frantic Objectivist nonsense, and they refused to consider all evidence to the contrary, including evidence in the art that they had missed due to their having been rather aesthetically visually limited and inexperienced, and also including statements from the artist which contradicted the Objectivish-types' accusations.

So, what rational, objective means would you, Roger, propose that we use to objectively measure the competence of people to judge art as well as artists' motives? How would we objectively test individuals' aesthetic capacities and limitations? In my experience in online O-land, those who are the most unaware and unobservant are usually the ones who are squawking the loudest about the objectivity and superiority of their tastes and interpretations. Those who are the least able always seem to believe that their own personal aesthetic limits are the limits of all mankind. Anyone can squeal and posture and pose like that, so how would you propose that we objectively settle the matter?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Well, if the artist wants "ugly" and puts out his estimation of that and the consumer or would-be consumer agrees, then mutual subjectivity objectifies ugliness for whomever goes along with that.

--Brant

it's called "voting"

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

As I've observed in the past, the personally incredulous tend to congregate, and to belive their amassing of their fallacious "arguments from personal incredulity" somehow magically adds up to something that is not fallacious. The fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity" times 7 equals a non-fallacy? Heh.

J

There's no "argument from incredulity" whatsoever involved in saying that an entity, be it a painting or anything else, can't do what that entity can't do.

Ellen

Heh. Ellen, you're being foolishly obstinate.

Your argument is that you (along with Roger's allegedly supremely aesthetically sensitive wife) have not experienced identifying an artist's intended meaning in any paintings, and you've never witnessed others having done so, and you can't believe that it can be done, and therefore it can't be done. Argument from personal incredulity.

I wasn't making any such argument, nor, technically, an "argument" at all. Instead my point from the start about your "Its meaning is [...]" statements has been that paintings aren't linguistic and don't assert.

The discussion between you and me started ( here, #214 Kamhi thread) with my gently asking you - at the end of a lengthy post in which I said that I could see where you got the rest of your reaction - about your two "Its meaning is [...]" statements, hoping that you'd recognize the problem yourself. I think you later did, maybe briefly, understand the error involved, since somewhere you reworded.

One question that I brought up, which I had to remind you of multiple times, is one that you still haven't answered:

"Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!"

Reposting. This was #556 on the "Kamhi" thread:

Please give a direct link to your mother and child question. I'm not avoiding it. I haven't seen it, wherever it is. There are many more posts on this thread than I've managed to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224528

The painting didn't make me feel inspired to be strong and bold or to pursue my passions. Rather, it made me feel that strength and boldness and passion were important to the artist.

Your statement as to what it made you feel is important to the artist isn't equivalent to "Its meaning is that humans should...."

Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!

I'm not thinking of any specific painting, but I can imagine feeling that an artist feels positively about motherhood, but, again, this isn't the same as the "Its meaning is..." statement you attributed to the painting you said you see as feminine.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224722

Do you not understand that a work of art is recognizable to people as a work of art, and that people generally understand that works of art usually contain something that is important in some way to the artist, and therefore when looking at a work of art, people understand that there is a context which involves the likelihood that what is presented in the art is probably in some way important to the artist?!!! With that in mind, do you really think that it's a big or impossible leap that an artist can nonverbally communicate that something is important to him, be it, say, heroic patriotism, sexuality, athletic health and bold masculinity, gentle nurturing motherhood, etc.?

I don't think it's a leap at all that an artist can communicate that something is important to him or her. Moral dicta and evaluative universals as an art work's "meaning," however, no. Art works don't refer. They present. They aren't linguistic ciphers.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Repeat, what you want to call "the essential issue of aesthetics" is a side issue to what Rand was doing, which was presenting a theory of the nature, source, and need for art.

Indeed she was presenting a theory of the "nature" of art and aesthetic response, and a key part of her theory of the "nature" of artistic response/aesthetic judgment was her desire to believe that it was "objective." Everything must be objective! But she skipped the proof. Her view of the alleged "nature" of art therefore hasn't been validated by her own stated epistemological method. That makes it an essential issue. Any issue which would cause the entire structure to crumble can't be called a "side issue."

J

LOL at that interpretive mash-up. I recommend rereading the first three essays of The Romantic Manifesto and trying to understand what Rand was saying.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've described multiple times on OL why Rand's art qualifies as great examples of the Kantian Sublime. I've explained it to you over and over again. Were you not paying attention?!!! Are you incapable of reading comprehension?! Her novels present terrible forces of immense magnitude and destructive power which stimulate her fictional heroes' will to resist and overcome, as well as readers' will. That's what makes her novels examples of Kantian Sublimity. How long will it take for you to grasp the simple concept?

Your post was addressed to Tony, but I'll interject that I wasn't paying attention to more than occasional snatches of discussions about the Kantian Sublime. I've started to look into that subject, and I don't agree with the idea that "Rand's art qualifies as great examples."

Later.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Hahahaha!!!

You've just started to look into it, and already you've concluded that Rand's art doesn't qualify? That's typical of you lately. You're going into everything with a predetermined, woman scorned outcome.

Heh. And your last attempt to not see the Kantian Sublimity in Rand's work was even sillier. You identified a few mere scenes or incidents from her novels. Always missing the big picture right in front of you due to your 'lectron chasin'.You don't appear to be grasping the concept of the Sublime, but are hellbent on fighting about it.

J

[Jonathan]

Repeat, what you want to call "the essential issue of aesthetics" is a side issue to what Rand was doing, which was presenting a theory of the nature, source, and need for art.

Indeed she was presenting a theory of the "nature" of art and aesthetic response, and a key part of her theory of the "nature" of artistic response/aesthetic judgment was her desire to believe that it was "objective." Everything must be objective! But she skipped the proof. Her view of the alleged "nature" of art therefore hasn't been validated by her own stated epistemological method. That makes it an essential issue. Any issue which would cause the entire structure to crumble can't be called a "side issue."

J

LOL at that interpretive mash-up. I recommend rereading the first three essays of The Romantic Manifesto and trying to understand what Rand was saying.

Ellen

I recommend that you reread all of Rand's writings on aesthetics, and try to keep your mind focused on the big picture.

And in discussions here, try to stay on track and address the points that others make, rather than indulging in meaningless, off-point, electron-chasing distractions.

The issue at hand here is that neither Rand nor any of her followers have objectively defined "beauty," and they haven't identified any rational standards or criteria by which to objectively measure or judge not only beauty, but any other aesthetic phenomena.

J

[Jonathan]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

As I've observed in the past, the personally incredulous tend to congregate, and to belive their amassing of their fallacious "arguments from personal incredulity" somehow magically adds up to something that is not fallacious. The fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity" times 7 equals a non-fallacy? Heh.

J

There's no "argument from incredulity" whatsoever involved in saying that an entity, be it a painting or anything else, can't do what that entity can't do.

Ellen

Heh. Ellen, you're being foolishly obstinate.

Your argument is that you (along with Roger's allegedly supremely aesthetically sensitive wife) have not experienced identifying an artist's intended meaning in any paintings, and you've never witnessed others having done so, and you can't believe that it can be done, and therefore it can't be done. Argument from personal incredulity.

I wasn't making any such argument, nor, technically, an "argument" at all. Instead my point from the start about your "Its meaning is [...]" statements has been that paintings aren't linguistic and don't assert.

The discussion between you and me started ( here, #214 Kamhi thread) with my gently asking you - at the end of a lengthy post in which I said that I could see where you got the rest of your reaction - about your two "Its meaning is [...]" statements, hoping that you'd recognize the problem yourself. I think you later did, maybe briefly, understand the error involved, since somewhere you reworded.

One question that I brought up, which I had to remind you of multiple times, is one that you still haven't answered:

"Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!"

Reposting. This was #556 on the "Kamhi" thread:

Please give a direct link to your mother and child question. I'm not avoiding it. I haven't seen it, wherever it is. There are many more posts on this thread than I've managed to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224528

The painting didn't make me feel inspired to be strong and bold or to pursue my passions. Rather, it made me feel that strength and boldness and passion were important to the artist.

Your statement as to what it made you feel is important to the artist isn't equivalent to "Its meaning is that humans should...."

Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!

I'm not thinking of any specific painting, but I can imagine feeling that an artist feels positively about motherhood, but, again, this isn't the same as the "Its meaning is..." statement you attributed to the painting you said you see as feminine.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224722

Do you not understand that a work of art is recognizable to people as a work of art, and that people generally understand that works of art usually contain something that is important in some way to the artist, and therefore when looking at a work of art, people understand that there is a context which involves the likelihood that what is presented in the art is probably in some way important to the artist?!!! With that in mind, do you really think that it's a big or impossible leap that an artist can nonverbally communicate that something is important to him, be it, say, heroic patriotism, sexuality, athletic health and bold masculinity, gentle nurturing motherhood, etc.?

I don't think it's a leap at all that an artist can communicate that something is important to him or her. Moral dicta and evaluative universals as an art work's "meaning," however, no. Art works don't refer. They present. They aren't linguistic ciphers.

Ellen

Again, your position comes down to your personally not getting it, based on your not having experienced it. In other words, "argument from personal incredulity."

The fact that you haven't experienced something via a work of art doesn't mean that others can't. The fact that many works of art may not communicate "moral dicta" or "evaluative universals" does not mean that none can. The fact that you (or me, or any other individual) may not be able to identify an artist's intended meaning doesn't logically imply that no one can.

Besides, what are the odds of your being able to recognize an artist's "evaluative universals" in his art when you're approaching it with the mindset that the art can't communicate them? Heh. "I refuse to see! There, I've proven that no one can see!"

J

[anthony]

I've described multiple times on OL why Rand's art qualifies as great examples of the Kantian Sublime. I've explained it to you over and over again. Were you not paying attention?!!! Are you incapable of reading comprehension?! Her novels present terrible forces of immense magnitude and destructive power which stimulate her fictional heroes' will to resist and overcome, as well as readers' will. That's what makes her novels examples of Kantian Sublimity. How long will it take for you to grasp the simple concept?

Your post was addressed to Tony, but I'll interject that I wasn't paying attention to more than occasional snatches of discussions about the Kantian Sublime. I've started to look into that subject, and I don't agree with the idea that "Rand's art qualifies as great examples."

Later.

Ellen

That notion has to be knocked on the head. 1. It's only a coincidence of approximately similar emotions (exultation, triumph, 'sublimity', etc.) as posited by Kant, and portrayed in Rand's fiction, 2. it hasn't any bearing on their distinctly opposing causations.

In Kant's case, an immense scene (or "terrible forces") elicits the heightened emotion(s), and brings ("stimulates") one to overcome ("resist") one's awe and dread (etc.) with one's reason (that is, Kant's ideas of "reason").

Rand as is known, viewed emotions as one's automated response to 'something' - a fact of reality, one's action, an act of consciousness - also dependent on one's metaphysical value-judgments (his conscious view of existence). 'Something', that requires identification, extrospectively or introspectively, before its value-assessment and an emotional response (often within a brief moment).

For Rand, "consciousness IS identification" (altogether unlike anything I've read in Kant's purview).

In her various characters are men and women who in thought, word and deed, displayed: integrity, independence, productiveness, pride, egoism, rationality, and reason. Above all, as the central idea behind Romantic Realism, each possessed and lived by a volitional consciousness a). to build their character and convictions b). by which they ultimately achieve their goals. Albeit that some made mistakes, the best of those individuals judged themselves, accepted the consequences and corrected them, again, with free will. (Only one failed in her final goal, but she undoubtedly formed an unforgettable character and died trying, at the end).

Anyway, what is undeniable is that their rationality and volition (etc.) was already existing in them, prior to meeting the challenges of reality - i.e. all forces, "terrible" or not so.

I'm a little hazy recalling instances in the novels of emotional exhilaration, either narrated by the author and/or expressed by a character. A scene in the steel foundry. Dagny at the controls of a locomotive. A rising skyscraper? Not to matter. I will bet that in any such instance, it was always the virtues, reason and free will of the character which was being celebrated. As the culmination and joyful reward for their applied mental, spiritual and physical efforts. An emotion as consequence, not the cause.

Reduced simply:

Rand: Fact-->reason -->action-->emotion;

Kant: Fact --> emotion ----> reason.

He got it backwards. It's next to impossible to read Rand through "Sublime" goggles, I'd think.