Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[anthony]

That's running for cover behind a smokescreen, J.

You state (often enough) :

1. I'm a perfect Rand/Objectivism follower

2. I'm irrational and illogical.

Therefore,

3. Rand/Objectivism is irrational.

(Your proof won't be forthcoming).

[Jonathan]

That's running for cover behind a smokescreen, J.

You state (often enough) :

1. I'm a perfect Rand/Objectivism follower

2. I'm irrational and illogical.

Therefore,

3. Rand/Objectivism is irrational.

(Your proof won't be forthcoming).

No. I said you were the perfect Rand-follower, not the perfect Rand-follower/Objectivism-follower.

You don't practice Objectivism -- you don't adhere to reason and logic. You follow Rand's mistaken opinions. You opt to follow the instances in which she deviated from Objectivism.

J

[william.scherk]

If Kant was the father of Modern Art, who was Modern Art's mother?

Here is my view of the likely outcome of Tony and Jonathan's war games, with apologies to Friedrich and other gruesome confections of the Arctic Sublime.




Tony, do you just basically have nothing to say about actual stabs at art? I set a lure for you to expand upon the Romantic exuberance directly inspired by a cultural flowering of Sublime, in Le Sublime, above. It seems you are more intent upon Killing Kant. Please give Le Sublime another once-over or gander and see if you do not have an experience to share. If it strikes you cold or fantastic or postmodern or Kantian-infused, Romantic, nice, a fail, whatever. Maybe you can use the painting to prove a point and finally crush Jonathan's argument as well -- with a memorable visual reference.

Forgive me for trying to elicit that which you may wish to keep mum. It is just that nothing you or Jonathan are battling over seems notably fresh or revealing. I get a vertiginous feeling that we are circling a drain we have circled before, replete with bad-tempered squabbling, rumbling, gurgling. It seems to me that you have said much of what you can possibly say about Kant and Art without reference to actual art works.

It might freshen up the intellectual landscape to venture off on a new path, turn to look at what other people are saying and making and pointing to, and so on.

For those who get the reference to Friedrich, does it in any way touch upon the arctic scenes in Frankenstein? I have never had quite such a meal of horror upon reading a mere physical description. Kind of like the scene of devastation and emptiness of soul that I imagined in the crumbled New York in Atlas Shrugged.

Kant, the father of monsters, the 'father' of Frankenstein! And Rand just wants us to know about the utility of cultural abortifacients. How much better the world would be now if Kant had fallen stillborn from the womb. No Warhol, no Christo, no Ai Weiwei. If only the angry villagers had stopped the coming horror in its tracks.

Edited January 15, 2016 by william.scherk

[anthony]

Great! Now I know! Rand deviated(!) from her philosophy ... by criticizing Kant, I presume...

I don't consider his ideas wonderful - as dreaming mostly, and dangerous when it comes to warfare and morality, in fact - so I'm an irrational deviant too.

Gawd, and I thought we O'ists were touchy about criticism. Good thing Kant doesn't also get regular offending media coverage, instead of only the few slights you suffer here.

[Roger Bissell]

If Kant was the father of Modern Art, who was Modern Art's mother?

Here is my view of the likely outcome of Tony and Jonathan's war games, with apologies to Friedrich and other gruesome confections of the Arctic Sublime.

If I didn't know better, I'd say it might be a current photo of the Rand Paul for President Headquarters. :-/

The Mother of Modern Art? Just guessing...Frieda Kahlo?

(Image of Kahlo for Day of the Dead at the Museo Frida Kahlo)

Reason for edit: Show 'Edit by' line

Enable HTML?

REB

[Jonathan]

Great! Now I know! Rand deviated(!) from her philosophy...

Yes, there are many instances in which Rand deviated from her own stated philosophy, and those deviations are the views of hers which you cherish and live by. You prefer her deviations to her philosophy.

...by criticizing Kant, I presume...

Yes, Rand's criticisms of Kant are uninformed and irrational, and they represent some of the instances of her deviations from her own stated philosophy.

I don't consider his ideas wonderful - as dreaming mostly, and dangerous when it comes to warfare and morality, in fact - so I'm an irrational deviant too.

You're not aware of his ideas. You're only aware of Rand's and your distortions of his ideas.

Gawd, and I thought we O'ists were touchy about criticism.

In general, O'ists are indeed extremely touchy about criticism. They abandon logic and reason very quickly when confronted with potent criticism. They're not very good at dealing with reality.

Good thing Kant doesn't also get regular offending media coverage, instead of only the few slights you suffer here.

???

You still seem to imagine that I'm defending Kant or advocating for him. I'm not. I'm simply identifying the fact of reality that you're misrepresenting his views. When you say that any historical person said or believed what he did not, it doesn't follow that I'm a loyal adherent to that person's ideas who is upset and "suffering" due to your slighting him. My correcting your false statements only means that I'm correcting your false statements. I've explained to you several times in the past using something along the lines of this: If you were to say that Hitler was an Eskimo female who invented television, and then I refuted your statement, it would be tremendously stupid of you to conclude that I was a Hitler-lover who was all worked up about my hero being attacked.

But you don't get it. You don't want to get it.

Really, really stupid.

J

[Jonathan]

The Mother of Modern Art? Just guessing...Frieda Kahlo?

No, artists can't be the Mother or Father of anything. The Randian theory is that philosophy drives all of history. So an Evil Philosopher God(dess) -- a female version with the same immense magnitude of destructive power that Kant is said to have wielded -- would be the only person who could qualify. Artists don't invent, create, discover and originate. They just read philosophers who tell them what to do with their art.

J

[anthony]

Great! Now I know! Rand deviated(!) from her philosophy...

Yes, there are many instances in which Rand deviated from her own stated philosophy, and those deviations are the views of hers which you cherish and live by. You prefer her deviations to her philosophy.

...by criticizing Kant, I presume...

Yes, Rand's criticisms of Kant are uninformed and irrational, and they represent some of the instances of her deviations from her own stated philosophy.

I don't consider his ideas wonderful - as dreaming mostly, and dangerous when it comes to warfare and morality, in fact - so I'm an irrational deviant too.

You're not aware of his ideas. You're only aware of Rand's and your distortions of his ideas.

Gawd, and I thought we O'ists were touchy about criticism.

In general, O'ists are indeed extremely touchy about criticism. They abandon logic and reason very quickly when confronted with potent criticism. They're not very good at dealing with reality.

Good thing Kant doesn't also get regular offending media coverage, instead of only the few slights you suffer here.

???

You still seem to imagine that I'm defending Kant or advocating for him. I'm not. I'm simply identifying the fact of reality that you're misrepresenting his views. When you say that any historical person said or believed what he did not, it doesn't follow that I'm a loyal adherent to that person's ideas who is upset and "suffering" due to your slighting him. My correcting your false statements only means that I'm correcting your false statements. I've explained to you several times in the past using something along the lines of this: If you were to say that Hitler was an Eskimo female who invented television, and then I refuted your statement, it would be tremendously stupid of you to conclude that I was a Hitler-lover who was all worked up about my hero being attacked.

But you don't get it. You don't want to get it.

Really, really stupid.

J

J., you protest too much, all heat and no light.

I "get it" - I don't agree with "it".

It's not as though you would observe a "deviation" from Objectivism when you seem not to understand Objectivism. Alone, your misuse of "logic and reason" shows that. (I notice "reality" is your new mantra. Once more, my disagreement with the sublime, is that it is not in reality and of reality, regardless of how Kant or anyone explained it).

Has it not yet sunk in that "reason" IS conceptualization, logic IS the art of non-contradictory identification? Indeed, Objectivist lore; but your ideas of "reason" have not the least purchase unless you acknowledge the O'ist ideas, and argue on its terms. The axioms, for starters.

You've had many chances to refute my several opinions and theories about beauty and sublime, with reason and logic. You chose not to every time, instead ranting about Rand (and me). "You would say that, because..."

At the very least, you could honestly quote from Kant, warts and all, rough with smooth. Rather, you cherry pick an irrelevant quote supposedly on war, but generally sink to your well worn tactics of scorn, insults, unexplained denials and grand-standing, without a new, original idea of your own.

From your reading of Kant and the Sublimists you well know where a few of his dubious and outright bad ideas are buried. E.g. I notice you never mention his plainly self-sacrificial morality. If sublimity connects with and informs this morality - in any way - as scholars claim, it has plenty to answer for. (Right, as a Rand follower, I was 'taught' that is a bad morality. Of course, what I see and know and consider had no bearing on it).

Your bad faith and concrete-boundness precludes me from having a candid and rational debate with you. If I'm to uncover more truth about Kant (et al.) and perhaps to do him more justice, it won't be in your presence.

[Jonathan]

J., you protest too much, all heat and no light.

I "get it" - I don't agree with "it".

No, you don't get it.

It's not as though you would observe a "deviation" from Objectivism when you seem not to understand Objectivism. Alone, your misuse of "logic and reason" shows that. (I notice "reality" is your new mantra. Once more, my disagreement with the sublime, is that it is not in reality and of reality, regardless of how Kant or anyone explained it).

When hating on Kant and the Sublime, you always forget that the Sublime is Rand's signature aesthetic style. Well, actually, you used to forget. Lately, you've taken to refusing to see it. "What? Huh? The characters in Rand's novels weren't facing anything of immense magnitude and destructive power. They were only facing harmless, non-physical 'abstractions,' and when Rand described the enemy as being everywhere and nowhere, and as using fear and terror as their weapons, she didn't really mean fear and terror. You're just taking her use of 'fear' and 'terror' out of context or something!"

Has it not yet sunk in that "reason" IS conceptualization, logic IS the art of non-contradictory identification? Indeed, Objectivist lore; but your ideas of "reason" have not the least purchase unless you acknowledge the O'ist ideas, and argue on its terms. The axioms, for starters.

When will you start to practice the "art of non-contradictory identification"? Let's see you put Objectivist ideas into action for once.

You've had many chances to refute my several opinions and theories about beauty and sublime, with reason and logic. You chose not to every time, instead ranting about Rand (and me). "You would say that, because..."

Heh. The onus isn't on me to refute your opinions. And you don't have any "theories." You merely have statements which aren't backed up by anything. A "theory" is something which contains substance rather than just a blurted wish for something be true.

And clearly you don't understand how logic works. When people assert that judgments of beauty (and all other aesthetic judgments) are objective, the onus is on them to prove it. The onus is on them to objectively define the terms and clearly identify objective standards and criteria to be used in making aesthetic judgments. The onus is on them to demonstrate objective aesthetic judgments with examples of their theory in action. That's what Objectivism requires.

You haven't complied. Nor has His Royal Published Majesty, nor anyone else. Rand herself just skipped it by abruptly offering the excuse that it was beyond the scope the discussion, right after having snarled that all other thinkers were dismal failures in regard to the subject. Well, she never got around to coming up with any proof, standards or criteria. She's been dead a long while, and none of her pompous spawn have even attempted to address the issue. I've personally challenged several to do so. Yet nothing. Zip, zero, nada.

Others were said to have "failed dismally." Heh. Well, ya'll haven't even risen to the level of "failing dismally." You're incompetent. Incapable. Laughable. Not even able to give it a half-assed try. Cowering in the shadows and Safe Spaces. All of you've got is bluff, and even that's transparent and incompetent.

At the very least, you could honestly quote from Kant, warts and all, rough with smooth. Rather, you cherry pick an irrelevant quote supposedly on war, but generally sink to your well worn tactics of scorn, insults, unexplained denials and grand-standing, without a new, original idea of your own.

You're lying.

From your reading of Kant and the Sublimists...

"Sublimists"? Heh. What are "Sublimists"? Anyone who addresses the philosophical concept of the Sublime is a "Sublimist"? The idea of the Sublime became evil because Darth Kant addressed it?

you well know where a few of his dubious and outright bad ideas are buried. E.g. I notice you never mention his plainly self-sacrificial morality.

I don't mention ideas that Kant didn't have. I deal with reality, not with the imaginary Kant which you've created in your head.

If sublimity connects with and informs this morality - in any way - as scholars claim, it has plenty to answer for. (Right, as a Rand follower, I was 'taught' that is a bad morality. Of course, what I see and know and consider had no bearing on it).

You don't know or see anything in reality. You misinterpret everything because your brain has been poisoned by Rand's errors. You see everything through that twisted mindset. You misread everything and interpret benign statements as being "warts and all." When Kant identifies war as being capable of stimulating the Sublime, you stupidly misinterpret that as his confession that he values and glamorizes war, because that's what you want to believe. You "blank out" (as your idol would say) the logic of the fact that the Sublime is about resisting and overcoming the threatening phenomena, not valuing or glamorizing them.

Your bad faith and concrete-boundness precludes me from having a candid and rational debate with you. If I'm to uncover more truth about Kant (et al.) and perhaps to do him more justice, it won't be in your presence.

You're not capable of having a rational debate with anyone. You're not capable of rationality. You're filled with irrational hatreds and being encouraged and inspired by Rand's.

It's time to cut the cord, Tony.

J

[william.scherk]

Rand, adjusting perfectly to the gravity on Titan. Followed by The Architect of your mind.

Both gouache with sparkles, on acid-free masonite. Free shipping within The Wall. Available through Noobairy Confections.





A man shall lead us out of the darkness that is Kant. That man is Ayn Rand. He who builds his own towers, without fear, without compromise, without friends in high places.

Edited January 16, 2016 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

The first image isn't loading, at least on my screen, although I can see it when copy/pasting the link, which doesn't appear to be jumbled in any way. So, weird that it's not showing up. ?

I think that you've probably achieved the Objectively Best Possible visual art there, Billy. Or almost. 99.9%. If Rand were leaping and bounding about through midair, with her head throw back, it would be 100% Objective Esthetic Perfection.

J

[Brant Gaede]

The first image isn't loading, at least on my screen, although I can see it when copy/pasting the link, which doesn't appear to be jumbled in any way. So, weird that it's not showing up. ?

I think that you've probably achieved the Objectively Best Possible visual art there, Billy. Or almost. 99.9%. If Rand were leaping and bounding about through midair, with her head throw back, it would be 100% Objective Esthetic Perfection.

J

I don't think Rand would care for that kind of thing, however. She was beyond kitsch. She did describe Dagny as a young girl that way, but it was appropriate to an exuberant young girl. As an adult she was riding in the locomotive on the first run of the John Galt Line and the trip continued beyond into her getting her lights fucked out. But this is all the written word. You paint this stuff and the contextual dynamic isn't there. In that case, I think an implied dynamic works best. (This includes sculpture.) You can put a world of thought into the Mona Lisa's smile. Or the David's David preparing to slay Goliath or protect Florence or whatever you want. You can literally depict dynamic action, but the more you do this as the artist in a painting the less the viewer has to work with with his brain until the brain says it's kitsch--it's completely unto itself.

Or, the figure in the painting is passive but that's all. No suggestion of anything other than just standing there. (This is hard to do with a mere head and shoulders. This is why Newberry's best stuff seems to me to be portraiture.)

Since I'm no esthetician, this is just food for thought.

--Brant

[Selene]

Art - her lawyer argues in the affirmative....

Paris (AFP) - A woman has been arrested for indecent exposure after lying down naked in Paris's Musee d'Orsay in front of Edouard Manet's similarly nude painting of the prostitute Olympia, her lawyer said Sunday.

Museum-goers were enjoying an exhibition entitled "Splendour and Misery: Images of Prostitution 1850-1910" when Luxembourg artist Deborah de Robertis got undressed and took on the pose of the famed Olympia.

De Robertis "was wearing a portable camera to film the public's reaction. It was an artistic performance," said her lawyer Tewfik Bouzenoune.

It was not the painting's first scandal: the depiction of a naked woman gazing directly at the viewer created an uproar when it was shown in 1865.

It is seen as clearly depicting a prostitute, a real woman, unlike the dreamy nymphs, religious or historical figures usually featured in art until that time.

However De Robertis's naked display was a little too real for the Musee d'Orsay tastes.

"There were many people in front of the painting. Security guards responded well, they closed the room and asked her to get dressed," a spokeswoman for the museum told AFP.

"As she refused, the police were called and removed her."

The museum has filed a complaint for indecent exposure. De Robertis was remanded in custody and referred to the Paris public prosecutor, who will decide Monday on possible legal action.

It is not the first time the artist has scandalised Paris and the Musee d'Orsay.

In May 2014 she exposed herself in front of Gustave Courbet's "The Origin of the World" painting to reproduce the close-up image of a woman's genitals.

"Putting an artist in custody sends a very bad message," said Bouzenoune, slamming a "worrying judicial prudishness".

He cited the case of South African artist Steve Cohen who was found guilty of indecent exposure in 2014 after dancing around in front of the Eiffel Tower with a live rooster attached to his penis with a ribbon.

Despite France's reputation as a hotbed of sexual liberation, art and sex have mixed badly in recent years.

In 2014, vandals deflated a massive sculpture of a tree in Paris's chic Place Vendome by American artist Paul McCarthy that was shaped like a sex toy.

Then in 2015 a sculpture by British-Indian artist Anish Kapoor at the Palace of Versailles that was dubbed the "queen's vagina" for its sexual overtones was defaced by anti-Semitic graffiti.

http://news.yahoo.com/indecent-exposure-artist-arrested-nude-pose-paris-museum-192901886.html;_ylt=AwrC1C0lL5xWXyMACf7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

[Brant Gaede]

One can call it "art;" I call it exhibitionism.

--Brat

[Jonathan]

[AIRBRUSHED]

[9thdoctor]

Here's an O'ist writing about the Sublime, and it's pretty good:

http://www.checkyourpremises.org/2016/04/02/teaching-philosophy-with-atlas-shrugged-francisco-vs-hume-on-reason-and-emotion/

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

On January 12, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Jonathan said:

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."

No, that is not my position.  Instead, that you're attributing an impossible symbolic capacity to those two paintings with your "Its meaning is [...]" statements.  No matter how many times you intone "argument from incredulity," the incantation won't turn those paintings into discourse.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

On January 13, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan said:

Here's a fairly recent response to Ellen's spiteful silliness of electron-chasing and refusing to see the Sublime in Rand's novels. Read the questions, Tony, and see if you can figure out for yourself what the answers might be:

On November 3, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Jonathan said:

In Rand's art, she presents the individual against the what?

What threatening and destructive phenomena did Rand's art present as gray and shapeless, and as being "everywhere and nowhere"?

When Galt sought to stop the motor of the world, was he speaking of actually physically stopping the Earth from turning, or was he talking about something else? What was he rising against? Was it of immense magnitude? Was it a powerful, threatening and destructive force?

Which entities did Rand's fictional characters speak of as using "terror in place of proof," of using "fear as your weapon" and of "the horrors they practice." Which phenomena did her heroes describe as having "horrors are their ends," and that "their bloodiest horrors are unleashed to punish the crime of thinking"? To what or whom did the heroes ascribe "the terror of unreason," and as being "expert at contriving means of terror," and of "giving you ample cause to feel the fear"?

Which phenomena did the heroes in Rand's art, as well as readers, feel their power to resist and rise above?

J

Are you suggesting that in We the Living Rand is presenting the Soviet state as something of value because it stimulates Kira's will to resist?

In saying he was going to "stop the motor of the world," Galt was talking about the altruist ethics.  Rand presents that ethics as small, petty, a moral con-game, and only kept operative by the sanction of the victim.  What the characters who go on strike have to overcome is their own mistaken views as a result of which they grant sanction.  They learn that all they need do is "shrug" and the con-game will implode.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

No, that is not my position.  Instead, that you're attributing an impossible symbolic capacity to those two paintings with your "Its meaning is [...]" statements.  No matter how many times you intone "argument from incredulity," the incantation won't turn those paintings into discourse.

Ellen

Pure "Argument From Personal Incredulity."

And I did not attribute "symbolic capacity" to the paintings.

And I didn't claim that the paintings could be "turned into discourse."

I've explained these things over and over again. You refuse to understand. Mostly due to electron-chasing, but secondarily due to Personal Incredulity.

J

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Are you suggesting that in We the Living Rand is presenting the Soviet state as something of value because it stimulates Kira's will to resist?

What an irrational question!

Do you STILL not understand the concept of the Sublime?!!!! Wow! After all these years, and after all these discussions!!!! Holy crap! How are you not getting it?!!!!!

I've often cited Newberry's article Terrorism and Postmodern Art as presenting an example of Newberry's having (unknowingly) experienced the Sublime in response to the 9/11 attacks (while mistakenly believing that he was attacking/refuting the concept of the Sublime):

"To witness the obliteration of those glowing, lithe twins was a shock beyond comprehension...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."

People say that there's no such thing as a stupid question, but I think that it really would be a stupid question for someone to ask, after reading the above, "Are you suggesting that Newberry is presenting the 9/11 attacks as something of value because it stimulated his will to resist?"

So, for the billionth time, the Sublime is not the valuing of the immense and terrifying entity, but of our valuing our moral, willful response to it.

It really is a simple concept to grasp when you're not refusing to grasp it.

 

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

In saying he was going to "stop the motor of the world," Galt was talking about the altruist ethics.  Rand presents that ethics as small, petty, a moral con-game, and only kept operative by the sanction of the victim.

Rand presents evil in BOTH ways. She claims (or has her characters claim) that evil is small, petty and impotent, but then also shows that it's quite powerfully destructive.

Did you not bother to read the quotes that I provided, which were included in your last post?

Here they are again (I'm adding bolding and selective font size increases to help you see what you've apparently missed the first time around):

Quote

 

What threatening and destructive phenomena did Rand's art present as gray and shapeless, and as being "everywhere and nowhere"?

When Galt sought to stop the motor of the world, was he speaking of actually physically stopping the Earth from turning, or was he talking about something else? What was he rising against? Was it of immense magnitude? Was it a powerful, threatening and destructive force?

Which entities did Rand's fictional characters speak of as using "terror in place of proof," of using "fear as your weapon" and of "the horrors they practice." Which phenomena did her heroes describe as having "horrors are their ends," and that "their bloodiest horrors are unleashed to punish the crime of thinking"? To what or whom did the heroes ascribe "the terror of unreason," and as being "expert at contriving means of terror," and of "giving you ample cause to feel the fear"?

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

What the characters who go on strike have to overcome is their own mistaken views as a result of which they grant sanction.  They learn that all they need do is "shrug" and the con-game will implode.

Yes, they learn to feel their will to resist, and to feel their "estate as exalted above" what appeared to have been an immensely powerful and threatening force.

In other words, they experienced the Sublime, and most readers do too.

J

 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

... the Sublime is not the valuing of the immense and terrifying entity, but of our valuing our moral, willful response to it.

It really is a simple concept to grasp when you're not refusing to grasp it.

Great explanation of Ayn Rand's life.

--Brant

[anthony]

A lot of flim-flammery about Galt "stopping the motor of the world". There is only one explanation and it's simple and clear.

He was going to pull out the men and women whose minds, values, talent and energy and sacrifices kept the production of the world going.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

A lot of flim-flammery about Galt "stopping the motor of the world". There is only one explanation and it's simple and clear.

He was going to pull out the men and women whose minds, values, talent and energy and sacrifices kept the production of the world going.

Is that all?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

18 hours ago, anthony said:

A lot of flim-flammery about Galt "stopping the motor of the world". There is only one explanation and it's simple and clear.

He was going to pull out the men and women whose minds, values, talent and energy and sacrifices kept the production of the world going.

Uh-huh. Galt was indeed going to remove from society the men and women who were most original, creative and productive.

But why was he going to do that?

Hmmm.

Was his plan a reaction to anything, or did he do it just for fun, for kicks, for grins and giggles?

Was his tactic of taking away the producers a response to a menace that was inflicting great harm throughout the entire world, or should we "blank out" the reality that the novel contains said menace because admitting to its existence would mean that we'd have to accept the fact that the novel is a prime example of Kantian Sublimity?

Okay, so, let's agree to blank it out. There was no menace of immense magnitude which stimulated the heroic characters' will to resist and to regard their estate as exalted above it. So, then, Galt must have convinced the prime movers to abandon society just for the thrill of it! Since there were no threatening entities whose evils provoked the heroes to rise in response, then Galt and company must have taken their actions arbitrarily.

Weird, huh? What a nonsensical novel!

J

[Jonathan]

19 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Great explanation of Ayn Rand's life.

--Brant

And of her stated "sense of life."

J