Leaderboard

Yes, their commonality of altruism follows and is not surprising, with the secular-leftist leaning more towards altruism-collectivism I think. I believe "justice"- which was mentioned - is key. (It, and calls for "dignity" and "equality" have been increasing lately with the growth of Progressivism). A central factor amongst altruists is the criticality of being SEEN to be doing "good" (by their concern for others, serving others, humbling oneself, etc.) and so earning their just desserts by the approval of some vague 'collective'. If one considers that the religious folk 'know' that God is watching and judging them, with their ultimate justice in the Hereafter, it could answer your last question. In short, the religious mainly seek justice from God, the secular left demands it now - from Society and the State - while an Objectivist knows he finds and earns it for himself, the justice of reality.

While Sam Harris may not be the best and most rational person, I think his relative success (given the ideals he's preaching, regardless of whether he practices them) indicates good stuff about the broader culture.

"Abhorrent" here is a fancy synonym for "distasteful". That is as much as all of us (who aren't physicians, dentists, nurses, etc.) can agree on. If you intend some more morally-freighted notion, then we don't all agree. A physician can discuss surgical procedures casually over lunch without missing a beat (though I hope Nucatola didn't have any scheduled for that afternoon). The rest of us couldn't, and that is where the videos get their dramatic impact. Do I really have to remind the present audience that our emotional reactions prove nothing about the facts under consideration?

Good catch. I've heard this before, that if the painting does not stand on its own, then something is amiss. On my technical drawings, if I get a call inquiring what something means on it, I explain it. Afterword, I consider the call, and ask myself if it was something they could/should have known, or if it was something I could have organized or specified more clearly.

You had no reason to read old threads or to assume he was an artist. Also, being an artist does not mean he's not wrong about Rand's view on art.

What does Travers mean? Isn't he disagreeing with Rand here? Wasn't her position that one should be able to be merely exposed to a work of art, and then, just by looking at its content, understand its meaning? What else does Travers think a viewer needs? Did you notice that none of those questions are about aesthetics? None of them are about visual artistry and visual expression. None are about the aesthetic effects of visual phenomena on the viewer, or about the artist's technical artistic skills or deficiencies, or about composition, choice of range of color palette, internal visual consistency, lighting, perspective, vantage point, angle, etc. Travers seems to have the mindset of downplaying or removing aesthetics from art. I wonder why. Rather than being about visual art qua visual art, Travers' questions are about only one small aspect of visual art -- the narrative. In effect, he treats visual art as if it were literature, and he seems to be unaware of the expressiveness of all other elements of visual art. His doing so makes me wonder if he has any real knowledge of those other elements. J

I think it's kitsch. His style looks copied from Maxfield Parrish, but he lacks Parrish's technical proficiency.