The Three Elements of Life on Earth: Justice, Liberty, and Romance.

[John Tate]

The Three Elements of Life on Earth is a metaphysical abstraction I have made to distinguish the three key components of human life on Earth. These are what living rationally and morally require. The components need to be universal in which they can be applied to all, and yet individual in that they encroach upon no single person’s rational goals and happiness. Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

I will start with a simple premise on the meaning of life and existence. The meaning of life is romance. Not in the simple sense of romance towards others – however in the abstract sense that we should live for our goals and dreams. “Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to The Fountainhead) As the meaning of life I take the essence of Ayn Rand’s art. That the meaning of life essentially is to change the state of the world, be it one’s life through the attainment of love, to the lives of thousands through the attainment of a new technological feat – to achieve a romantic ideal on earth.

Essentially romantic goals have requirements and are not mere whims and fantasies, although imagination is the first step of a romantic goal the second step is conceptualization. Conceptualizing a goal is about rationally realizing its possibility and the actions required to make it possible. The fact that action is required to make ones goals possible brings forth the case of liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest, independent of others and their interference, is liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest in disregard to the rights and interests of others and their own selfish interests is tyranny – which makes romance difficult, if not impossible.

Thus liberty requires first and foremost the recognition of individuals as independent entities. This requires the erasure of the political notions of nationalism and other forms of collectivism. The implication that sayings like: “Ask not what your country can do for you – but what you can do for your country,” (John F Kennedy) are detrimental ideals towards the freedoms of the individual, and imply that the freedoms of the individual are unimportant. Most politicians in the modern world promote themselves by promoting service towards the nation which they claim to be able to direct in the best way possible. This is antithetical to liberty and generally detrimental to the requirement of liberty: justice.

Justice is the only appropriate realm of Government, on the premise that justice preserves liberty from chaos, mob rule, anarchy, and ultimately tyranny. Justice is not only appropriate to the Government, but to everyone. For a Government to function without encroaching on the rights of its people, the people must realize the requirements of justice. Justice being the concern for the treatment of oneself, those close to oneself, even those strangers whose cause you value in a romantic sense. Justice for oneself depends on self-defense from violations of your liberty, and justice for all depends on supporting or actively participating in the defense of others from violations of liberty. Concern for the liberty of oneself or the liberty of others should be objective not subjective. The persons ill-feeling and personal whims are not of importance – “I felt violated,” or “I felt like violating,” prove nothing and are invalid. What matters are the facts, the evidence of liberties being violated. Justice is rational, not emotional.

What knowledge requires is the subject of epistemology. For a comprehensive view of the subject of objective rationality I’d suggest Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw this and let it through with some misgiving for being so raw.

There is a lot here that needs to be fleshed out and it represents what I call the "proclamation" style of arguing. I really don't like this style. It's a terrible habit in the Objectivist world and is pure preaching. In other words, things like "man requires XXXX" or "concept Y needs ZZZZ" are proclaimed with little else to prop up the premises and conclusions, then dictates are laid down for everyone to obey as if the author were reality itself.

This sounds an awful lot like the style of several people I know.

As one really shaky premise, that are many more fundamental "elements" to living on earth than "Justice, Liberty, and Romance," although these are presented here as "the three." Also, just at the outset, I have a real problem calling any of these "metaphysical abstractions."

It goes on, but there are some ideas in here that are worth discussing. It may sound like I am blasting the author, but I don't know him. I am basing my comments on this article and I don't think this it is a very good one. But I sense a mind that is trying to get things right.

So if anyone is interested, here it is.

Michael

[John Tate]

I appreciate the comments, and I think I do need to refocus on some of my terms (metaphysical abstractions) and find something more appropriate. I do mean to expand on this with perhaps another essay, explaining the moral concepts justice should preserve. More than anything I just wanted to write something that clearly points out the prerequisite of romance which I've defined as liberty, the prerequisite of liberty which I've defined as justice. Justice also requires an Objective morality. Something which I should expand on later.

Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

I should have italicized society, for this isn't the outlay of an entire philosophy but a purely political statement that rests on some things outside of the article. I should also probably change the title a bit to emphasize my purpose of writing. I will have to make some edits.

[BaalChatzaf]

My three elements are

problems to solve

places to go

good food to eat

ergo, never a dull moment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 8, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[galtgulch]

The Three Elements of Life on Earth is a metaphysical abstraction I have made to distinguish the three key components of human life on Earth. These are what living rationally and morally require. The components need to be universal in which they can be applied to all, and yet individual in that they encroach upon no single person’s rational goals and happiness. Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

I will start with a simple premise on the meaning of life and existence. The meaning of life is romance. Not in the simple sense of romance towards others – however in the abstract sense that we should live for our goals and dreams. “Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to The Fountainhead) As the meaning of life I take the essence of Ayn Rand’s art. That the meaning of life essentially is to change the state of the world, be it one’s life through the attainment of love, to the lives of thousands through the attainment of a new technological feat – to achieve a romantic ideal on earth.

Essentially romantic goals have requirements and are not mere whims and fantasies, although imagination is the first step of a romantic goal the second step is conceptualization. Conceptualizing a goal is about rationally realizing its possibility and the actions required to make it possible. The fact that action is required to make ones goals possible brings forth the case of liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest, independent of others and their interference, is liberty. The ability to act on a person’s own selfish interest in disregard to the rights and interests of others and their own selfish interests is tyranny – which makes romance difficult, if not impossible.

Thus liberty requires first and foremost the recognition of individuals as independent entities. This requires the erasure of the political notions of nationalism and other forms of collectivism. The implication that sayings like: “Ask not what your country can do for you – but what you can do for your country,” (John F Kennedy) are detrimental ideals towards the freedoms of the individual, and imply that the freedoms of the individual are unimportant. Most politicians in the modern world promote themselves by promoting service towards the nation which they claim to be able to direct in the best way possible. This is antithetical to liberty and generally detrimental to the requirement of liberty: justice.

Justice is the only appropriate realm of Government, on the premise that justice preserves liberty from chaos, mob rule, anarchy, and ultimately tyranny. Justice is not only appropriate to the Government, but to everyone. For a Government to function without encroaching on the rights of its people, the people must realize the requirements of justice. Justice being the concern for the treatment of oneself, those close to oneself, even those strangers whose cause you value in a romantic sense. Justice for oneself depends on self-defense from violations of your liberty, and justice for all depends on supporting or actively participating in the defense of others from violations of liberty. Concern for the liberty of oneself or the liberty of others should be objective not subjective. The persons ill-feeling and personal whims are not of importance – “I felt violated,” or “I felt like violating,” prove nothing and are invalid. What matters are the facts, the evidence of liberties being violated. Justice is rational, not emotional.

What knowledge requires is the subject of epistemology. For a comprehensive view of the subject of objective rationality I’d suggest Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

John,

My concern these days is with Justice for without it the other things are not possible. Ayn Rand pointed out the significance of the role of philosophy to all of us. We all know that the prevailing ideology is the mysticism/altruism/collectivism axis otherwise known as Judeo Christian religion in our country. It evidently had a numbing effect on the intellect of the voters who joyfully empowered Obama to save them by doing whatever he thought best. If it calls for enslaving the producers, so be it. He has them all believing that the free unregulated market failed so we are really in for it now.

It is troubling to realize that the antidote is known, Objectivism, but it is only accepted by a small minority. I know some of us do what we can to spread the word and support the organizations which are dedicated to making Objectivism more widely known especially among the college age generation. It is sad that it just isn't happening fast enough while the mystics continue to sell out stadiums full of believers.

I do have misgivings in my support of the Campaign For Liberty because although the ones I've met are pro freedom many stop short of a woman's right to choose and many have yet to read the books of Rand and von Mises and Rothbard etc.

Still their numbers are moving up 102798 at the moment. I do try to encourage them to read Atlas etc.

Only one thing will save this country and that is when we out number them!

gulch

Edited February 8, 2009 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

I manage to live quite nicely without Romance. I phart in the general direction of Romance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Tate]

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

I manage to live quite nicely without Romance. I phart in the general direction of Romance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wouldn't the fart signify some kind of problem you have with romance. It seems from that comment that you don't live so nicely without it and your distaste with romance might be because you don't get any romantic attention.

[Brant Gaede]

Justice, Liberty, and Romance,

John Tate.

I manage to live quite nicely without Romance. I phart in the general direction of Romance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wouldn't the fart signify some kind of problem you have with romance. It seems from that comment that you don't live so nicely without it and your distaste with romance might be because you don't get any romantic attention.

John, he's in love with his wife. This is just one of his intellectualizations.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

And here all this time I've gotten by on the whole Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll triumverate... B)

[BaalChatzaf]

Still their numbers are moving up 102798 at the moment. I do try to encourage them to read Atlas etc.

Only one thing will save this country and that is when we out number them!

gulch

Yoda says: Hold not your breath, Young Gulch, until outnumber them do you, else blue turn you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 13, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Wouldn't the fart signify some kind of problem you have with romance. It seems from that comment that you don't live so nicely without it and your distaste with romance might be because you don't get any romantic attention.

What problem? My wife and I have been best friends for over 52 years. And she is smarter than I am so I get the benefit of her brains.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; Happy Valentine's Day to you and your wife.

[BaalChatzaf]

The Three Elements of Life on Earth is a metaphysical abstraction I have made to distinguish the three key components of human life on Earth. These are what living rationally and morally require. The components need to be universal in which they can be applied to all, and yet individual in that they encroach upon no single person's rational goals and happiness. Rather than an extensive ethical theory, or epistemological method of what rationality requires these are the elements that need to exist in society for people to have the ability to achieve the full potential of their rational self.

Let's see now. Our species, homo sapiens sapiens has been around for perhaps 250,000 years when it mutated from an earlier hominid species. In that time our race has done with liberty, justice and romance. We have braved ice ages, the explosions of supervolcanoes (for example, Toba about 75,000 years ago) and we have managed without these magic ingredients. During that time our forbears invented the spear, the wheel, ready means of making fire, cloth, rope. Our ancestors learned how to count and keep track of astronomical phenomena. About ten thousand years ago our ancestors learned to domesticate and grow grains at need as well as domesticating various animals for food and fiber. Nowhere in sight was justice, liberty and romance. This rather rareified things came into their own when humans started living in fairly large communities and had associations that went beyond the immediate or the extended family.

Sorry to burst your romanticized bubble. I prefer dealing with the with facts of our existence. Give man a reasonably full stomach and some sexual company and he is a happy scout.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 1, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[SteveWolfer]

John, I applaud you on your article. I'm disappointed that more members didn't see the value. Michael got trapped in technical details, but his 'instincts' were correct in putting up the article.

You were sufficiently clear that your use of the concept "romance" went beyond the feelings a couple might have for one another (as you said, "not in the simple sense of romance towards others").

There is a metaphysical side to romance when seen broadly. It is a key element of human nature. Let me explain like this. Just as fuel is needed to move our cars, emotions are needed to move us. We don't act to gain and keep what we don't value - if that became our modus operandi we would run down, loose energy, become depressed, and eventually come to an end. In the strictest motivational sense, if take away all self-esteem and all emotion, it becomes impossible to act. Self-esteem can be thought of as the emotional fuel that relates to how we feel about ourselves. It is background to all we feel and all we do. Now, the object of any intended goal is likely to have an emotion it triggers. But what if we generalize or average all of our emotions that relate to that which is outside of us and important to us? That would be a generalized sense of the benevolence (or malevolence) of the universe - in a personalized fashion - and, if it is positive and if it is combined with a positive self-esteem it is a romantic view of life. It is an ecstatic feeling of how good it is to be alive.

One can be struggling to succeed at something and failing, one can and will encounter personal tragedies, but our experiential background - for life itself - should be "I am capable of handling what life presents me with, I am deserving of happiness, and the universe is knowable and full of things that can interest, excite and enrich me." To be have that as ones experiential relation to life is what I take to be the grand meaning of romanticism.

We who are so interested in the abstract, the intellectual, will, too often, not examine our reason for living - the experience of life. If we couldn't feel, what would be our purpose?

Mr. Tate said "the meaning of life is romance" - we might quibble about the word "meaning" - but I wouldn't argue if he had said the purpose of life is romance - romance in the sense of that excited, energized, positive experience I've tried to describe above.

-------

Mr. Tate's short piece also excited me in his address of liberty. He went from the individual who will be manifesting their desires with action, to the concept of liberty. I would add an element. Just as our capacity to act requires sufficient self-esteem to empower us to act, that we feel a degree of competence and worthiness, it is also important to have a degree of confidence that the universe in which we act is not turned against us. Liberty, generalized as broadly as we have with romanticism, starts with a background feeling-state that action is possible - that in general the universe won't frustrate our actions, if we find the appropriate ones. And our actions are those of an individual. Then, as he said, liberty is what Romanticism requires. If our purpose is to be as happy as possible, then we need to feel passionately, and that feeling won't sustain without acting, and acting requires liberty. Liberty starts as the base feeling but continues through the definition of individual rights, and on to implementation. Then we have liberty.

---------

Justice is also a concept capable of expansion, of generalizing in a similar way. Here I may be parting company with Mr. Tate. We all agree, I suspect, on what justice means in the context of government, and I suspect we all recognize that we can speak of justice in an ethical context that does not include government (as in, some things are morally wrong, but should not be illegal). Note that we have a feeling-state that goes along with justice as it is achieved in either of these contexts. It feels good to see justice triumph. What if we go still broader than politics or ethics? Is there a metaphysical/epistemological level at which we can appreciate a sense of justice? I sometimes feel a wonder at things - that they are as they are feels right - that the laws of nature really are laws and the joy at uncovering this or that expression of that. In this sense, at least for me, justice, broadly generalized, has the background feeling-state that completes what starts with romanticism and its requirement of liberty.

[BaalChatzaf]

I will start with a simple premise on the meaning of life and existence. The meaning of life is romance. Not in the simple sense of romance towards others – however in the abstract sense that we should live for our goals and dreams. "Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be." (Ayn Rand, Introduction to The Fountainhead) As the meaning of life I take the essence of Ayn Rand's art. That the meaning of life essentially is to change the state of the world, be it one's life through the attainment of love, to the lives of thousands through the attainment of a new technological feat – to achieve a romantic ideal on earth.

Who or what determines the way things ought to be, and how?

As far as I can tell what is needed for life is earth, air, fire and water.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jeffrey smith]

I would object to the phrases "meaning of life" and "purpose of life". They imply an intentionality to the universe--as if life is a job or a journey whose success is measured by the achievement of an externally imposed goal.

The meaning of life is life.

The purpose of living is living.

Anything further meaning or purpose is something that the individual imposes on reality, based on his fundamental values. To quote Baal: Who or what determines the way things ought to be, and how?

Romance too is not the best choice of words: inherent in the word is the idea of fantasy and whim. That's why the Aethiopica and the Quest du San Graal were called romances; that's where the romantic movement got its name. Therefore Baal was quite correct in farting in its general direction--and used a very appropriate source for his quotation, too.

Edited September 12, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Selene]

Interesting thread. I am going to look into the attribution of that phrase to Aristotle, unless someone has the reference handy. Only on OL could someone actually have that handy. Love this place.

Ran across this in my first cursory search.

April 13, 2009 | By: Reess Kennedy

<h2 class="posttitle">Television’s Most Important Genre: Romanticism?</h2> Ayn Rand’s philosophy of rational self interest has been polarizing people for years and is especially under fire during an economic crisis widely pinned on the unchecked greed of a select few. I won’t try to defend her economic or political views, but she wrote something about art which is especially important to consider during “these times,” and relevant among a community of content providers.

Basically, Rand believed some art is more valuable than other art — the highest form being romantic art and the artistic movement of romanticism. In an article written for The Objectivist magazine in 1968 she defines romanticism as follows:

“Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.”

Intense stuff, I know, but there is something interesting here to consider: During a serious economic recession, do viewers really want to see on television a reflection of the depression in their own lives? Or do they, instead, want to view a projection of what can be … a story about something more beautiful, more “timeless” and more inspiring?

Statistically, the data is tough to parse. Indeed, television viewing is at a record high, but most of this month’s current analyses show strength from a variety or programming, much of which might more quickly be described as based of the “random trivia of the day” than the “fundamental, universal problems” of human existence. I’d love to be able to show you a chart that uncovers how during this economic crisis shows telling stories of resilience, ingenuity and leadership are becoming markedly more popular than stories of celebrity drunkenness but alas, the latter category of programming continues to perform.

Still, run a search through the CableU database (use the toolbar above) or on Google for “inspirational” or “aspirational programming” and observe all the mentions you get! See how many times network executives say that this what they’re looking for. The difficulty, I imagine, is that if this aspirational programming — Romanticism — is more valuable in some ways as an art form, it also seems to follow that it’s a harder genre to find stories for and produce successfully.

I mean Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People — one of the iconic works of Romamticism — was probably slightly more challenging, time consuming and expensive to come up with and paint than Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. And so it seems to follow that it’s more difficult to produce shows that stir people’s imaginations, inform their intellect or initiate in them a call to action than it is to produce shows that merely record banality.

We need more Delacroix, however. In this time of hardship, not only are there business opportunities for “Romanticism” programming, there is also an important emotional need for it from viewers all over the world — and the beauty of all this is that when these two things meet the result amounts to the best of what television can be.

Now all that is needed are content providers bold enough to find these beautiful stories and bring them to air.

http://www.cableu.tv/cuconfidential/2009/04/televisions-most-important-genre-romanticism/ < some interesting comments underneath the article.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

It sounds like it's the Poetics, but a quick skim doesn't show it. But at 1448b10 of the Poetics he comes out with the point that humans naturally like imitation, even if it's something of the Duchamp school (he mentions dead bodies or low forms of animals), because it's a form of learning.

[Selene]

It sounds like it's the Poetics, but a quick skim doesn't show it. But at 1448b10 of the Poetics he comes out with the point that humans naturally like imitation, even if it's something of the Duchamp school (he mentions dead bodies or low forms of animals), because it's a form of learning.

Jeffrey:

Nice. Thanks. I guess I never read the introduction in the Fountainhead and I would generally say that my reading of Ayn was most sparse on the Art issue because I found her "pronouncements" as to what constituted art as ridiculously biased and seen through her kaleidoscope glasses.

It just did not sound right when I read this thread today. It was the "ought" that jumped out of that quote to me knowing my Aristotle reasonably well.

Again nice pick up on the Poetics.

Adam

December 20, 2008

<h3 class="storytitle">Our Man in Greece (1)</h3> I've started to write what I envision to be the last of my essays on Ayn Rand — this essay is tentatively entitled Our Man in Greece: On the Use and Abuse of Aristotle in the Works of Ayn Rand.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Rand's abuse of Aristotle was her attempt to invoke his authority in her essays on the philosophy of art, which I first noticed many years ago on my first serious reading of Aristotle's Poetics. Several times in her writings she claimed to be maintaining or renewing the Aristotelian tradition of literary criticism. She did this by misquoting Aristotle to make him seem like "romantic realist" or literary moralist, as in the following passage ("Basic Principles of Literature" in The Romantic Manifesto, p. 80):

The most important principle of the esthetics of literature was formulated by Aristotle, who said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because "history represents things as they are, while fiction represents them as they might be and ought to be."

But the "quotation" from Aristotle here is spurious. It's true that in Chapter 9 of the Poetics Aristotle draws a distinction between poetry (not "fiction") and history, but he does not say what Rand claims he says. Here is my translation of the relevant passage (1450a36-1451b11):

[T]he function of the poet is to describe, not what has happened, but the kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible according to probability or necessity. For the difference between the poet and the historian is not that the one speaks in meter and the other speaks in prose … but that the one describes what has happened and the other describes the kind of thing that might be. Thus poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history, for poetry speaks more of the universal, whereas history speaks more of the particular; and by universal I mean what such or such a person might say or do according to probability or necessity (which is the aim of poetry, although it assigns proper names to the characters), whereas by particular I mean what, say, Alcibiades did or experienced.

The primary difference here is that Rand imputes a moral force to Aristotle's interpretation of poetry: it represents things as they "ought to be", she claims. Yet the word "ought" is nowhere to be found in Aristotle's text; his contrast is between the particulars of what has happened vs. the universals of what might happen, not naturalist mere facts vs. romanticist high ideals. Although Rand thought that she was buttressing her argument for the primarily moral purpose of literature by invoking the authority of Aristotle, in fact she was merely abusing that authority by putting words into his mouth.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Selene

[jeffrey smith]

It sounds like it's the Poetics, but a quick skim doesn't show it. But at 1448b10 of the Poetics he comes out with the point that humans naturally like imitation, even if it's something of the Duchamp school (he mentions dead bodies or low forms of animals), because it's a form of learning.

Jeffrey:

Nice. Thanks. I guess I never read the introduction in the Fountainhead and I would generally say that my reading of Ayn was most sparse on the Art issue because I found her "pronouncements" as to what constituted art as ridiculously biased and seen through her kaleidoscope glasses.

It just did not sound right when I read this thread today. It was the "ought" that jumped out of that quote to me knowing my Aristotle reasonably well.

Again nice pick up on the Poetics.

Adam

December 20, 2008

<h3 class="storytitle">Our Man in Greece (1)</h3> I've started to write what I envision to be the last of my essays on Ayn Rand — this essay is tentatively entitled Our Man in Greece: On the Use and Abuse of Aristotle in the Works of Ayn Rand.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Rand's abuse of Aristotle was her attempt to invoke his authority in her essays on the philosophy of art, which I first noticed many years ago on my first serious reading of Aristotle's Poetics. Several times in her writings she claimed to be maintaining or renewing the Aristotelian tradition of literary criticism. She did this by misquoting Aristotle to make him seem like "romantic realist" or literary moralist, as in the following passage ("Basic Principles of Literature" in The Romantic Manifesto, p. 80):

The most important principle of the esthetics of literature was formulated by Aristotle, who said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because "history represents things as they are, while fiction represents them as they might be and ought to be."

But the "quotation" from Aristotle here is spurious. It's true that in Chapter 9 of the Poetics Aristotle draws a distinction between poetry (not "fiction") and history, but he does not say what Rand claims he says. Here is my translation of the relevant passage (1450a36-1451b11):

[T]he function of the poet is to describe, not what has happened, but the kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible according to probability or necessity. For the difference between the poet and the historian is not that the one speaks in meter and the other speaks in prose … but that the one describes what has happened and the other describes the kind of thing that might be. Thus poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history, for poetry speaks more of the universal, whereas history speaks more of the particular; and by universal I mean what such or such a person might say or do according to probability or necessity (which is the aim of poetry, although it assigns proper names to the characters), whereas by particular I mean what, say, Alcibiades did or experienced.

The primary difference here is that Rand imputes a moral force to Aristotle's interpretation of poetry: it represents things as they "ought to be", she claims. Yet the word "ought" is nowhere to be found in Aristotle's text; his contrast is between the particulars of what has happened vs. the universals of what might happen, not naturalist mere facts vs. romanticist high ideals. Although Rand thought that she was buttressing her argument for the primarily moral purpose of literature by invoking the authority of Aristotle, in fact she was merely abusing that authority by putting words into his mouth.

I had just found that passage about the poet vs. the historian, and came back online to post it.

In her defense, Rand may have been interpreting this in light of Aristotle's differentiation of tragedy and comedy--that the former depicts men as better than they are, while the latter depicts men as worse than they are (Poetics 1448a1-19).

If Aristotle then went on to declare tragedy superior to comedy, Rand would be on pretty firm footing, even if she didn't quote him precisely. And, since the portion of the Poetics that we have ends with a comparison of tragedy and epic that comes out in favor of tragedy, it's quite possible that Aristotle did declare tragedy the superior form of art (and therefore stated the superiority of showing men better than they are, or in other words showing men as they ought to be)--but since the portion of the Poetics in which such a comparison would take place, the section on comedy, is the part that's lost, we'll never know, and any declaration that Aristotle made such a pronouncement in favor of tragedy is--clearing throat--"whim" and "mysticism".

[Selene]

It sounds like it's the Poetics, but a quick skim doesn't show it. But at 1448b10 of the Poetics he comes out with the point that humans naturally like imitation, even if it's something of the Duchamp school (he mentions dead bodies or low forms of animals), because it's a form of learning.

Jeffrey:

Nice. Thanks. I guess I never read the introduction in the Fountainhead and I would generally say that my reading of Ayn was most sparse on the Art issue because I found her "pronouncements" as to what constituted art as ridiculously biased and seen through her kaleidoscope glasses.

It just did not sound right when I read this thread today. It was the "ought" that jumped out of that quote to me knowing my Aristotle reasonably well.

Again nice pick up on the Poetics.

Adam

December 20, 2008

<h3 class="storytitle">Our Man in Greece (1)</h3> I've started to write what I envision to be the last of my essays on Ayn Rand — this essay is tentatively entitled Our Man in Greece: On the Use and Abuse of Aristotle in the Works of Ayn Rand.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Rand's abuse of Aristotle was her attempt to invoke his authority in her essays on the philosophy of art, which I first noticed many years ago on my first serious reading of Aristotle's Poetics. Several times in her writings she claimed to be maintaining or renewing the Aristotelian tradition of literary criticism. She did this by misquoting Aristotle to make him seem like "romantic realist" or literary moralist, as in the following passage ("Basic Principles of Literature" in The Romantic Manifesto, p. 80):

The most important principle of the esthetics of literature was formulated by Aristotle, who said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because "history represents things as they are, while fiction represents them as they might be and ought to be."

But the "quotation" from Aristotle here is spurious. It's true that in Chapter 9 of the Poetics Aristotle draws a distinction between poetry (not "fiction") and history, but he does not say what Rand claims he says. Here is my translation of the relevant passage (1450a36-1451b11):

[T]he function of the poet is to describe, not what has happened, but the kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible according to probability or necessity. For the difference between the poet and the historian is not that the one speaks in meter and the other speaks in prose … but that the one describes what has happened and the other describes the kind of thing that might be. Thus poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history, for poetry speaks more of the universal, whereas history speaks more of the particular; and by universal I mean what such or such a person might say or do according to probability or necessity (which is the aim of poetry, although it assigns proper names to the characters), whereas by particular I mean what, say, Alcibiades did or experienced.

The primary difference here is that Rand imputes a moral force to Aristotle's interpretation of poetry: it represents things as they "ought to be", she claims. Yet the word "ought" is nowhere to be found in Aristotle's text; his contrast is between the particulars of what has happened vs. the universals of what might happen, not naturalist mere facts vs. romanticist high ideals. Although Rand thought that she was buttressing her argument for the primarily moral purpose of literature by invoking the authority of Aristotle, in fact she was merely abusing that authority by putting words into his mouth.

I had just found that passage about the poet vs. the historian, and came back online to post it.

In her defense, Rand may have been interpreting this in light of Aristotle's differentiation of tragedy and comedy--that the former depicts men as better than they are, while the latter depicts men as worse than they are (Poetics 1448a1-19).

If Aristotle then went on to declare tragedy superior to comedy, Rand would be on pretty firm footing, even if she didn't quote him precisely. And, since the portion of the Poetics that we have ends with a comparison of tragedy and epic that comes out in favor of tragedy, it's quite possible that Aristotle did declare tragedy the superior form of art (and therefore stated the superiority of showing men better than they are, or in other words showing men as they ought to be)--but since the portion of the Poetics in which such a comparison would take place, the section on comedy, is the part that's lost, we'll never know, and any declaration that Aristotle made such a pronouncement in favor of tragedy is--clearing throat--"whim" and "mysticism".

Yes, and even the parts that we have, are, at least as my graduate prof drilled into us, based on notes of his "students". I never read the introduction, but I intend to. However, your point is well reasoned that we could inductively make the argument that you are making with a good degree of "pretty firm footing". I have no problems at all with your argument and believe that Ayn understood it clearly also.

Since I am somewhat sane, I do not canonize philosophers, even one that I believe had most "things" correct, they are all human just like the rest of us.

Adam