Robert Campbell Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 SUBJECT: Response to the points of Boydstun / Rasmussen / Machan that there are "gaping holes" in Objectivism. My responses are indicated by an arrow ==> after those individuals' points.[…] […]•An examination of Kant, Hume, Hegel, Spinoza, and many others that was aimed at understanding their problematic ==> Sentence fragment.Phil,Some academics have adopted "problematic" as a noun.A paraphrase would be, "An examination of Kant et al., that was aimed at understanding what they thought were the key problems, why they thought these were the problems, and where they thought they could turn for satisfactory solutions."I don't much care for this usage, but Doug Rasmussen didn't make it up.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 <>2. [Rasmussen] [she] was incomplete regarding many things. Here is a list of some:•"The role of phronesis in ethics" ==> Both my Latin and my Greek dictionaries are in the shop for a lube job. So you [Mr. Boydstun] or Mr. Rasmussen will have to clearly define the term and its use in this context and how it is required for a full code of ethics.Phronêsis is usually translated as 'practical wisdom" or "practical intelligence." For the Stoics and Epictureans as well as Aristotle, phronêsis was considered vital to ethical behavior because without it the actor would not be able to apprehend particular situations accurately enough to be able to act virtuously in those situations.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Phil, concerning your #25: The topics I conveyed in #23 are some in which Sciabarra, Machan, and Rasmussen have expressed an interest. Those areas for further development are not my own suggestions or interests. Connection of Rand’s ideas with the thought of other philosophers, yes, that one is work I chronically do. The others do not coincide with my own areas of interest for the further development of Rand’s ideas. My own areas of interest for developing Rand’s thought further are contained in my old, main standing-on-one-foot criticisms of Rand’s philosophical positions (there are three: her metaphysics is overly deterministic (a); her epistemology is overly subjectivist; her ethics is overly egoistic [a, b, c, d] ) and contained in the areas of Rand’s philosophy that I think are true, important, and original in the history of philosophy (there are two, and they have received a lot of work from me: 1, 2, 3, 4). But what do you think, Phil? Do you have some areas of Rand’s philosophy that you think are especially in need of further development to be adequate? Do you have some areas of Rand’s philosophy that you think would be particularly fertile ground for further development?Analyses criticizing, clarifying, and extending Rand’s philosophic thought are presented and discussed at each meeting of the Ayn Rand Society. A good example would be Darryl Wright’s paper responding to Christine Swanton’s in Pasadena the spring before last (sorry you were not able to attend). Professor Wright gave a careful, original analysis of Rand’s writings concerning altruism; I expect it will become part of the book he is working on. This December at the Eastern Division meeting of ARS, the topic is “The Normative Foundation of Intellectual Property: Two Perspectives.” Both of the speakers are law professors at George Mason. One will present theoretical work built on an Objectivist philosophical foundation. The theoretical work of the other scholar will draw on foundations informed by Locke, Blackstone, and antebellum American natural law/natural rights jurists. The second presenter in his paper will take off from some of themes in the first paper, then develop his own views on those themes. At ARS we have developments of Rand’s thought, as well as engagement with alternative views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Thanks, Robert. 1) Practical wisdom, in the ordinary use of language, would be knowledge about practical things, while practical intelligence would be the capacity, the ability to acquire such knowledge. Both are obviously vital skills. Rand identifies, advocates, and defends -reason- as the faculty that would acquire knowledge and develop thinking abilities. In the real world, practical dimension as well as in the theoretical and academic ones. The branch in which this fits is mostly epistemology, more than ethics. Ethics tells you what you should do and why. The "how" is to a large extent epistemology, the branch which deals most with method. Psychology (perhaps even more than philosophy or Objectivism as such) would have much to say about the who, what, why, when, where ...and how... of reason.2) Re "An examination of Kant et al., that was aimed at understanding what they thought were the key problems, why they thought these were the problems, and where they thought they could turn for satisfactory solutions": Rand's view [as expressed by her and/or by Peikoff whom she always vetted] is that Kant (as well as Hegel, the pragmatists, the existentialists and many others) was wildly wrong on many of these points, Plato's genius was in identifying for the first time key issues in philosophy even if he was wildly wrong about where to turn for solutions. Just to see an example of why the above paraphrase of Mr. Rasmussen does NOT represent what is needed for "completeness" in Objectivism, think of the pragmatists and existentialists taking as their -starting- point the idea that we live in a universe of a constantly shifting, murky, incomprehensible, non-absolute reality. That is so wildly wrong in what they "thought were the problems" that you stop right there. You point out as Rand and Peikoff did what was corrupt about their metaphysics. You don't need to spend pages discussing "where they thought they could turn for satisfactory solutions". Your focus is to present *your own* philosophy. While only occasionally, for contrast, as an aside rebutting completely corrupt approaches.Phil(It's valid for an academic philosopher working in a Randian context to write journal articles considering some of these issues, but it clearly does not represent gaping holes in Objectivism as a system.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Whoops, sorry Stephen, I was composing an answer to Robert and didn't see your post. I'll try to look at it later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 (edited) I think the main avenues for development of Objectivism as a fleshed out system of knowledge beyond pure philosophy are as follows:1. Froming a more complete conception of how cognitive science melds with a theory of knowledge. Epistemology is an intersection of cognitive science, metaphysics and logic. More work and validation is needed in the cognitive science part, especially using exciting new advances in neuroscience.2. The problem of induction is a problem of which facts should be brought to bear on a problem and whether the facts are properly integrated. Objectivists should emphasize prediction as a test of whether what we know has been properly identified, essentialized and integrated and to what precision. Complexity theory and system dynamics are important parts of an open-ended solution to the problem of induction because they emphasize an interplay between identification, essentialization and prediction.3. Metaethics. I think Rand got ethics right, but more emphasis is needed on the psychological and biological aspects of development toward ethical maturity and dealing with problems in relationships which have significant psychological and biological components. Rational self-interest in relationships and trading value for value requires biological and psychological realism. A more complete account of psychological resilience and positive psychology will be helpful.Jim Edited July 12, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Then there's aesthetics, the first four essays of The Romantic Manifesto - of which very little if any serious work has been done in enlarging on those principles to the rest of aesthetics beyond literature [other than to claim is not possible, and that mostly by non-artists]... indeed, it seems as if very few artists care to base their work on Objectivist principles of aesthetics....As for intrinsic values - there are none, so nothing to develop [see Tara Smith's Viable Values] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 > But what do you think, Phil? Do you have some areas of Rand’s philosophy that you think are especially in need of further development to be adequate?...particularly fertile ground for further development? [stephen] In the realm of philosophy I like the wording of Jim H-N about "fleshing out". To flesh out means to take something which is correct in structure and add detail or add application or add explanation or add persuasive discussion or debate. Take three examples: It's not that there is anything wrong or false [in fact in each case there is a historically important array of insights] with (1) "The Objectivist Ethics" and its starting with why man needs values, the development of life as the antecedent concept, the biological discussion and the connection to other animals, living things... Nor (2) in epistemology - with the concept theory in ITOE. Nor (3) in ethics and politics - with the analysis of man's rights and the nature of government and her crucial principle of the non-initiation of force. But in example (1), it is exceptionally condensed and compressed in order to fit into a lecture at U. of Wisconsin. What is needed [i haven't read "Loving Life" or "Viable Values" or other works which attempt to do this, so I don't know to what extent this -has- been done] is to take a single compressed sentence or paragraph in many places and give -many- more examples (and even examples need to be 'fleshed out', followed thru from start to finish), conceive of counter-arguments and answer them, consider the exceptions people might raise, use more synonyms, less jargony and more ordinary phrases and terms that the thoughtful man on the street, non-philosophers, non-eggheads would relate to and grasp readily. In example (2), fleshing out is the first thing needed. It's even more condensed than OE. But also there are two other things needed - new identifications & extensive application of the ideas: [a] There is a whole science of epistemology which can be erected on this and on (rational) psychology. Starting with a theory of propositions (speaking as a former English teacher, who has read many grammar books, some of it already exists). Epistemology is an area which is begging to be applied to all areas of human life. To the whole area of reasoning properly. To thinking skills. To avoiding the Scylla of rationalism and the Charybdis of concrete-boundednes. It also needs to be applied to the whole area of proper sequence and curriculum in education. And so much more. In example (3), my understanding is that Rand has (in those cases where she is not totally original)knitted together some ideas from previous thinkers. She has streamlined them, made them non-contradictory, far more precise, and put them in proper order. Probably what most needs doing here [again, I haven't read all the Rand-sympathetic literature so I don't know if some brilliant person has seamlessly and thoroughly done this] is to do a historical development, show how she corrected mistakes, compromises, imprecisions, omissions made by Aristotle, Locke. And any others. Also in this area, what is needed is -application- of these ideas to all sorts of modern problems. Probably number one is to integrate the Federalist papers, the thinking behind constitutionalism, the common law and the principle of inalienable rights and --particularly-- the non-initiation of force and what that means in different cases in order to develop a proper philosophy of law, instead of the intellectual mess made by philosophers of law in the past [stephen mentioned intellectual property rights - a crucial area! Especially as we move to a world where wealth is less and less industrial assets, land, physical natural resources, etc.]There's more to say, but I'll stop here. This post is long enough if indigestion and constipation are to be avoided. [Anonrobt's point on the need for a substantial esthetics beyond literature/novels makes sense: an esthetics of painting, of sculpture, of dance, of poetry and films within literature, of design, of architecture...much more on music and rhythm. Some of this falls more in psychology than in philosophy.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhartford Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I think most Objectivist Living readers believe that “To build Objectivism into a more comprehensive and robust philosophy is to honor the work of its founder.” (Quotation from my Free Minds ’09 presentation.)Over the years I have addressed three issues toward that end. The third (discussed below) was presented at Free Minds ’09. The first contribution, presented to the TAS (then IOS) 1996 Summer Advanced Seminar, dealt with the distinction between “value principles” and “values.” “Value principles” are normative guides to gain and/or keep those things that benefit one’s life, values. Because a person’s “value principles” are sometimes referred to as a person’s “values,” it is not always clear in Objectivist literature whether “values” means “value principles” or “values.”The second contribution attempts to support Ayn Rand’s vision of “a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.” My article “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism” in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Spring 2007, is an attempt in that direction. (An early version was presented at the 2001 First Annual Enlightenment Conference.)The third contribution attempts to put the intuitive concept of “the right to life” on a firm ethical foundation. My talk at Free Minds ’09, “A Political Standard for Absolute Political Freedom,” derives a political standard of judgment to separate chosen actions into political freedoms and violations of political freedom. The goal is absolute political freedom, which means unfailingly protecting political freedoms and unfailingly constraining violations of political freedom. The derived political standard uses the concept of a valuing-chain for “unit economy” in discussing the various actions that need protection in the pursuit of a value. The relation between political freedoms and rights principles is also discussed. (All the talks were recorded by Haywire Recording and I expect they will be made available by the “The Free Minds Foundation.”) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Then there's aesthetics, the first four essays of The Romantic Manifesto - of which very little if any serious work has been done in enlarging on those principles to the rest of aesthetics beyond literature [other than to claim is not possible, and that mostly by non-artists]... indeed, it seems as if very few artists care to base their work on Objectivist principles of aesthetics....Are you familiar with Torres and Kamhi's work?Or Roger Bissell's?Roger gave a talk about the esthetics of music at the recently concluded Free Minds 09.I'm not sure what it would mean for an artist to base his or her work on Objectivist principles of esthetics.I hope it wouldn't be like Sonny Rollins' experience, when he read a detailed analysis by a music critic of the way several of his improvisations were structured, tried to shape his improvisations by deliberately following the principles enunciated in the analysis—and concluded that it was screwing up his playing...Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 1) Practical wisdom, in the ordinary use of language, would be knowledge about practical things, while practical intelligence would be the capacity, the ability to acquire such knowledge. Both are obviously vital skills. Rand identifies, advocates, and defends -reason- as the faculty that would acquire knowledge and develop thinking abilities. In the real world, practical dimension as well as in the theoretical and academic ones. The branch in which this fits is mostly epistemology, more than ethics. Ethics tells you what you should do and why. The "how" is to a large extent epistemology, the branch which deals most with method. Psychology (perhaps even more than philosophy or Objectivism as such) would have much to say about the who, what, why, when, where ...and how... of reason.Phil,Phronêsis is often left in Greek, because it was a technical term for several schools of Ancient philosophy. "Practical wisdom" and "practical intelligence" are rough renderings in English. Appealing to today's ordinary use among English speakers is kind of beside the point. Would you try to sort out what Aristotle meant by megalopsychia by appealing to ordinary uses, in 2009, of the English word "pride"?You've noted that phronêsis is both an epistemological and an ethical notion. Of course, practical wisdom is an aspect of reason. (Do you think Aristotle would have said it wasn't?) But which aspect, or aspects? Did Rand account for them, in her writings? If she didn't, how would you go about accounting for practical wisdom in an Objectivist way?And since Ayn Rand did read Aristotle fairly closely, shouldn't we interpret her not mentioning practical wisdom as an indication that she didn't think her ethical theory needed such a notion?Doug Den Uyl published a book on the subject in 1991: The Virtue of Prudence. ("Prudence" is an older rough translation of phronêsis.) Could what he said about the subject be relevant here?Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Then there's aesthetics, the first four essays of The Romantic Manifesto - of which very little if any serious work has been done in enlarging on those principles to the rest of aesthetics beyond literature [other than to claim is not possible, and that mostly by non-artists]... indeed, it seems as if very few artists care to base their work on Objectivist principles of aesthetics....Are you familiar with Torres and Kamhi's work?Or Roger Bissell's?Roger gave a talk about the esthetics of music at the recently concluded Free Minds 09.I'm not sure what it would mean for an artist to base his or her work on Objectivist principles of esthetics.I hope it wouldn't be like Sonny Rollins' experience, when he read a detailed analysis by a music critic of the way several of his improvisations were structured, tried to shape his improvisations by deliberately following the principles enunciated in the analysis—and concluded that it was screwing up his playing...Robert CampbellTorres and Kamhi's work is an example of the non-artists commenting on so-called impossibilities of extending the general principles beyond literature, for which I very much disagree with [and which I, along with Newberry, have shown their error in proclaiming supposed impossibility of morals being shown within paintings, to raise one example]... Roger's work on music aesthetics is one of the few I've seen taking the ideas seriously, and there is much merit to his efforts [tho haven't of course heard his latest since wasn't able to get to the Free Minds 09]...As for artist using her aesthetics principles, consider the opening/early postings of www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com [the blog link]as a rough guide to what I have in mind, along with the succeeding examples illustrating some of the contentions... Edited July 13, 2009 by anonrobt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 In example (2), fleshing out is the first thing needed. It's [presumably referring to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology] even more condensed than OE ["The Objectivist Ethics"]. But also there are two other things needed - new identifications & extensive application of the ideas: [a] There is a whole science of epistemology which can be erected on this and on (rational) psychology. Starting with a theory of propositions (speaking as a former English teacher, who has read many grammar books, some of it already exists). Epistemology is an area which is begging to be applied to all areas of human life. To the whole area of reasoning properly. To thinking skills. To avoiding the Scylla of rationalism and the Charybdis of concrete-boundednes. It also needs to be applied to the whole area of proper sequence and curriculum in education. And so much more. Phil,The lack of a theory of propositions is a major gap in Objectivist epistemology. Ayn Rand did not produce one. Leonard Peikoff, while she was alive and vetting him, did not produce such a theory. Nor has he ventured one in the years since 1982.As Ted Keer's new thread on linguistics should make clear, the study of language offers a great many challenges of its own. And the two subdisciplines of linguistics that are most closely related to epistemology—semantics and pragmatics—are also the least developed.Leonard Peikoff has made broad claims about proof (and related matters, such as arbitrariness) even though he has no theory of propositions.Is it a good idea to make these kinds of claims when key parts of your epistemology are TBD?Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Hi Robert, I don't think it is valid to speak of certain areas such as, in our discussion, valid, developed, systematic theories of induction and propositions being "major gaps" or holes in *Objectivism* if no one else, no other philosopher in the history of thought has done this either. It's a question of the implications of word choice and of stating this wider context. There is a clear connotation there. It makes it sound as if Oism is somehow flawed when compared to serious academic philosophy which has somehow been more responsible in addressing / resolving / finishing these issues.One could -- and probably should -- say instead "Oism, like other philosophies, has not yet developed these areas: A, B, C". You? Rasmussen? are falling into the trap of those who don't want Objectivism taken seriously. Find something Rand didn't cover and trumpet it. Use it as a reason for not having to seriously study Objectivism. "Oh well, she wasn't a serious philosopher. There are huge holes in her ideas. Sloppy."Since the intellectual, elite (and university) culture is overwhelmingly hostile to Rand's ideas, they would *love* to have an excuse to not have to read her in depth: "See...even her supporters, even those who are specialists in her ideas say she's flawed. Seems to be the Sarah Palin of philosophy."I'm not saying you personally are not working on this, but the emphasis of those who want to advance truth (and Oism is largely 'truth' in this regard) should be to explain, concretize, defend the truth (Oism) in those areas where it's clear. Build on it. Expand it. Read up on what has been done in grammar on propositions and then build on that. I did this years ago in regard to induction and if I ever publish it, people can tell me if there are flaws and if not I would expect them to build on. If Peikoff ends up doing good work in this area, critics should point that out and then shore it up, build on it, concretize it, etc.The number of things which there are to criticize in Oism are hugely less than the areas where there are things to build on. This little 'practical wisdom' thing is an example. The technical meaning to the Greeks is not important if one is not doing a study of the Greeks but of Oism, if it possible to discuss the topic in simple and current English, and if one simply wants to point out that Rand + Peikoff + Branden + Locke (his work on goal-setting) the Oist Psychotherapists (Edith Packer and others) said use reason and observation to acquire practical knowledge on which to choose specific values and goals and as concrete context for the Oist virtues.This has been done by R+P+B+L+PH: Countless examples, issues, contexts!! (The mistake of course, is leaving this heavily in the 'oral tradition'.) It would be a mistake to simply say, well, Rand didn't cover it all in her essays so there is a 'hole' there. When you talk about major gaps in Oism, Mr. Rasmussen, perhaps yourself, and others better have extensive knowledge of perhaps a dozen contributors coming up with applications, elaborations, insights over a fifty year period.My point is not that criticism of Rand/Oism is improper. It is that it has to be fair, have a sense of proportion. And here is the key: give PROPER WEIGHTING to the positive and the negative in the focus and volumen of one's comments, writings, contributions. Otherwise it would be like saying I'm a Newton scholar in broad terms and I'm going to write a dozen articles on his mysticism and religious foolishness and nothing else.I hope this is clear and cleans up the misunderstandings. I don't have too much more to say at this point on the subject of "Rasmussens' Gaps", I suspect.(By the way as an aside, I -do- have a systematic, integrated theory of induction which I developed some decades ago which solves the 'problem of induction' and which even Peikoff granted addressed all the major philosophical questions.)PhilP.S., While P may be wrong on arbitrariness, that topic is not synonymous with the topic of proof or certainty. And, yes, you can reach many definite philosophical conclusions about proof, you can say X is proven and Y is not, *without* having a systematic theory of propositions. That's a topic for another post...although it seems fairly obvious on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 (By the way as an aside, I -do- have a systematic, integrated theory of induction which I developed some decades ago which solves the 'problem of induction' and which even Peikoff granted addressed all the major philosophical questions.)Phil,As a practical matter, don't you think it's about time to present it?Decades of telling others how they should write and speak about Objectivism doesn't seem to have made much of an impact at any place I have seen. Is that what you want your life to add up to?Why not do something more productive than tell others what to do? You say you've got it. You say Peikoff agreed with it (for whatever worth that is).So...You want applause without doing the show? It won't come. You gotta pay to play.Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 SUBJECT: MSK GETS 'PERSONAL' AGAIN1. "Why not do something more productive than tell others what to do?"Michael, your question is a hostile one. "Tell others what to do" has a negative slant. Offering ideas, suggestions, critiques is productive as a vocation. As are my career choices outside of Oism.2. I have ***very good reasons*** for not publishing 'a theory of induction' for what would end up being a solely or primarily Objectivist audience. But I'm reluctant to offer my reasons in answer to you, to someone who sneaks in a dig or an uncalled for question about what my life adds up to, since you are not someone who wishes me well, but is -- in post after post over a period of time -- sort of looking for any chance to "cut me down to size".If someone ELSE wants to ask me the same question in good faith . . . 3. A word of advice which you will not take: You might want to rethink making sweeping implications about what someone's life adds up to, about their overall productivity just because you don't like them. It's sort of a bitchy, catty, underhand type of undercutting thing.You just piss people off.And it's why you get in so many bitter personal fights within Oist circles. You do a similar thing to what many Oist camp-followers do when they call people "evaders" or evil: You widen the discussion to attack people's character or their ethics or their personal responsibility instead of limiting it to their ideas or their intellectual mistakes.(It's psychologizing. It's what Perigo and Hsieh do. Except they do it in rage and launch thunderbolts. You tend a bit more to do it in a more passive-aggressive, just asking an innocent question or ha-ha type of way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Torres and Kamhi's work is an example of the non-artists commenting on so-called impossibilities of extending the general principles beyond literature, for which I very much disagree with [and which I, along with Newberry, have shown their error...You've done no such thing. In fact, any time that I've challenged you, Newberry, and others who share your views to demonstrate your theories of objectively "detecting" "artists' meanings" and "metaphysical value-judgments" in various non-literary artworks, you've failed miserably or avoided my challenges like the plague. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you like to assert that your subjective, and sometimes quite bizarre, interpretations of artworks are "objective."...in proclaiming supposed impossibility of morals being shown within paintings, to raise one exampleKamhi and Torres have not proclaimed the impossibility of morals being shown within paintings. In fact, they weren't discussing "morals" at all, but "metaphysical value-judgments" (a fact which you've perhaps gotten confused about due to the fact that you've expressed the belief in the past, contra Rand, that art is primarily a moral medium as opposed to a metaphysical one).This was Kamhi and Torres's actual position:In particular, we took issue with the following series of questions, the answers to which are implicated in metaphysical value-judgments, according to Rand’s analysis:Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does [he] have the power . . . to choose his goals and to achieve them . . . or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil? ([1965b] 1975, 19)We argued, in part, that “it is difficult to understand how the specific questions Rand poses would pertain to any art form but literature — unless the given work had a literary or narrative base (biblical, historical, mythological, or fictional) known to the viewer or listener” (Torres & Kamhi 2000, 25).J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Torres and Kamhi's work is an example of the non-artists commenting on so-called impossibilities of extending the general principles beyond literature, for which I very much disagree with [and which I, along with Newberry, have shown their error...You've done no such thing. In fact, any time that I've challenged you, Newberry, and others who share your views to demonstrate your theories of objectively "detecting" "artists' meanings" and "metaphysical value-judgments" in various non-literary artworks, you've failed miserably or avoided my challenges like the plague. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you like to assert that your subjective, and sometimes quite bizarre, interpretations of artworks are "objective."...in proclaiming supposed impossibility of morals being shown within paintings, to raise one exampleKamhi and Torres have not proclaimed the impossibility of morals being shown within paintings. In fact, they weren't discussing "morals" at all, but "metaphysical value-judgments" (a fact which you've perhaps gotten confused about due to the fact that you've expressed the belief in the past, contra Rand, that art is primarily a moral medium as opposed to a metaphysical one).This was Kamhi and Torres's actual position:In particular, we took issue with the following series of questions, the answers to which are implicated in metaphysical value-judgments, according to Rand’s analysis:Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does [he] have the power . . . to choose his goals and to achieve them . . . or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil? ([1965b] 1975, 19)We argued, in part, that “it is difficult to understand how the specific questions Rand poses would pertain to any art form but literature — unless the given work had a literary or narrative base (biblical, historical, mythological, or fictional) known to the viewer or listener” (Torres & Kamhi 2000, 25).JWhen you are dealing with values, you are dealing with morals, because that is what morality[or ethics] is - a code of values... and if you claim not all values are moral, then ye have to show the line of demarcation - which ye can't, because it not exist, just most obvious and least obvious, no not... Edited July 13, 2009 by anonrobt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 1. "Why not do something more productive than tell others what to do?"Michael, your question is a hostile one. "Tell others what to do" has a negative slant. Offering ideas, suggestions, critiques is productive as a vocation. As are my career choices outside of Oism.Phil,Actually it was not a hostile question. And if mentioning your actions has a "negative slant," maybe that's due to the fact that your actions have usually had a "negative slant." In order:I am genuinely curious as to why someone sits on what appears to be a good project for years and instead goes around constantly telling others what to do in discussing Rand and Objectivism. I was serious when I asked if you want your life to add up to this. Whenever I see people discussing Phil Coates, I see them discussing the finger-wagging school-teacher who has no project of his own. That's your legacy so far and I am not the one who came up with it. In fact, I rarely discuss you with anybody but you. I just read what others say. That's your public image whether anyone likes it or not.Now let's look at the negative slant. I would say that about 99% or more of your "constructive criticism" contains the implicit message to the person you are addressing of something like "you screwed up." Even when you started posting again here, you came out with a huge beef that everything was wrong, if it isn't broke don't fix it, yada yada yada. I didn't see you ask if there was a reason I had to update the software (like security, hackers and so forth). I saw a presumption of incompetence. That was loud and honking.And this is where I believe the "negative slant" comes from. You always make a negative presumption about a person extremely clear before you offer any criticism to him or others. Either the person has been incompetent, or is acting in bad faith, or does not think clearly or whatever. You have a pretty ample repertoire of negative presumptions about others.Frankly, in my mind, something like the following could not ever come from Phil Coates, "Hey, good job. I really like xxx and yyy. I did notice something, though. Have you thought about zzz? I could even help you..." That's constructive criticism. I suggest you learn it if your intent is to be constructive and not finger-wagging.And don't come at me with social metaphysics or crap like that. Keeping up the morale of producers is just as important as technical matters or being right. If a person decides to not do something because he loses the excitement, no amount of being smart, being a good little Objectivist, being rational, being moral, being right or any of that other stuff will make him do it.He might even sit on a good project for years... (Get excited, man! I mean it! You have a good mind.)2. I have ***very good reasons*** for not publishing 'a theory of induction' for what would end up being a solely or primarily Objectivist audience. But I'm reluctant to offer my reasons...Like I said elsewhere, horse crap.I just saw the "Do it" video by Art Williams one more time. If you have about 20 minutes, I suggest you take a look at it. And try not to smirk if you do. Here is the link: Do It. It has a little religion in it, but just ignore the religious stuff. The rest of the message is pure gold.One thing Art said that was 100% true. He said that it is hard for smart people to achieve things. He says there are 2 reasons. The first is that they are always trying to figure things out, like trying to figure out how to get out of doing something, or get around it. Usually they are looking for a better way. And the second reason is that they never do anything. So his message to them is, "Just do it."Another great part of his message is that super-successful achievers always "do it"—and a little bit more. They are committed to their goal—and a little bit more. They are achievers—and a little bit more. They may have average IQ's and whatever, but they are not average when they go do something. They do it, and do it, and do it, and do it, and do it...Until the job gets done. And then a little bit more.If I stepped on your bunion, I'm sorry it hurt. I don't want to humiliate you. I want to see you go up, not down. I don't want to see you stay where you are at. I don't like that public image you have and I think you can do something about it. And if you post around me, you will just have to put up with that.If getting pissed at me will induce you to think about these things, well get pissed at me.And then "do it"...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I think that Phil should go into the business of selling something like these.He could market them as the official Objectivist solution for people who are looking for a way to drive other people's cars from the back seat.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 When you are dealing with values, you are dealing with morals, because that is what morality[or ethics] is - a code of values... and if you claim not all values are moral, then ye have to show the line of demarcation - which ye can't, because it not exist, just most obvious and least obvious, no not...These are not ethical questions, and the answers that people give to them are not based in ethics:Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I think that Phil should go into the business of selling something like these.He could market them as the official Objectivist solution for people who are looking for a way to drive other people's cars from the back seat.Jonathan,You are wicked! Actually Phil is a good dude. He's just got Objectivistitis. That's a disease where you will only participate in anything if you believe people implicitly accept your intellectual superiority (especially if they outwardly deny it) and you are sure they are hurt by put-downs.I swear, there are some things from my childhood that Art Williams brings out in me. One is good old fashioned Southern tough love. Art mentioned that when he was a football coach, he had a paddle that he bored holes in so that when he smacked a butt with it, the blisters would welt up. Then he made a rule that if anyone on his team said the phrase, "I can't," he (or another student) would bust that thing across their asses 3 times. He said it took a month before that phrase totally disappeared.They were winners.Sometimes I believe certain people in our little subcommunity need a good paddling. They get so uptight and intimidated that they suck the joy right out of their own lives, then they go around trying to suck the joy out of others. Blisters on your butt has a way or pushing the reset button on your emotional priorities. Michaelbtw - I don't paddle my kids. But there are some Objectivists who sorely tempt me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Phil,I'm with Michael on this one.You should write up your theory of induction and publish it.There's some chance the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies would be interested... hint... hint...Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Michael,I don't think Phil was fishing for anything, just trying to state that he had spent a significant amount of time on the induction issue. Also, how do you know what Phil has done in his career? What's wrong with having a successful programming career and then deciding you want to teach instead? I think we lose a lot of good teachers to the presumption that it's not a noble profession. Two of my best teachers were professionals before they started teaching. My high school anthropology teacher knew the Leakeys personally and certainly knew her way around an archeological dig or a primate study. Why presume that teaching is some kind of Going Galt profession that people take waiting for the end times?Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Why presume that teaching is some kind of Going Galt profession that people take waiting for the end times?Jim,Why indeed.I certainly didn't.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now