tripod fish

How should Objectivists answer this question? For Israel, a ground offensive against Gaza would be: A: The only way to protect its population B: A smokescreen to hide its domestic problems C: A way to block creation of a Palestinian state D: A tit-for-tat reaction

The younger generation, whose minds are not yet totally corrupted. I know of very few people who confronted and changed their poisonous ideas after the age of 35.

Hm, a private army?

If Objectivism is ever to catch on with the wider public, we must stand up for what is true, and not for what irrational people want to be true. If telling the truth makes us come across as heartless bastards for the wider public today, so be it.

Absolutely. The US should focus on dealing with Iran with every weapon necessary. Iran is the primary engine of war, nuclear proliferation and instability in the Middle East, and of terrorism in the West. An powerful attack on Iran will be a warning to all other countries of what will happen if they continue to threaten Western countries.

Why should we give a damn about what catches on with irrational people? If men turn to reason, if they are not destroyed by dictatorship and precipitated into another Dark Ages, if men remain free long enough to have time to think, then Objectivism is the philosophy they will accept.

Event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169570436425781

The meaning she found would then be like the meaning people get out of seeing Jesus in a piece of toast. It was never intended, and thus it's not art in my opinion. As for the paintings you posted, I consider all of them non-art.

Perhaps. I've never really been interested in art until I discovered Objectivism, and I still struggle to see why it is a main branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I think it's the hardest part to understand, but I'll try to read some books and see if the pieces start falling into place like they have done all the way from metaphysics to politics.

Some background - yes. But not an explanation like "this is a rainy car window". That should be evident from the painting. Sooner or later the lack of clarity reaches a point where it can no longer be considered art. Like the painting above.

Yes. Elements of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non sequiturs, according to Wikipedia.

You may be right there. Still, I don't think anyone should be free to paint whatever they want and call it art. That sounds like subjectivism to me. It may have been a lot of things, and that's the problem. Moreover, it doesn't really reflect any metaphysical value-judgments, does it?

Do you think any painting can be considered art as long as the painter intends to involve a selective re-creation of reality according to his metaphysical value-judgments? Even this?

Because art involves communication between the artist and the audience. You may well have a good idea behind your brush strokes, but if the idea is not recognizable to the audience, then it's not art in my opinion.

Alright, someone other than the artist, you pedant If the people to whom the work is aimed require the artist's detailed description to judge what the re-creation involves and what metaphysical values it reflects, then it's not art in my opinion. This is true, I see that I was maybe too bombastic in my statement. It would be interesting to hear what meaning Rand got out of Corpus Hybercubus.

I will say, to someone. It is technically possible for an artist to create a piece of art that is only meaningful to one human being in the world if there is only one person who has the capacity to recognize what is being re-created. Art is a form of information, and information only exists in the realm of conscious minds.

This criterion is obviously too strict as it would render everything non-art. The question is, is the perceived meaning the same as the meaning the artist seeks to communicate, does the meaning involve a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's methaphysical value-judgments, and is the meaning expressed in a clear and unambiguous way? It is possible to find subjective meaning in and love even the the cloud patterns in the skies, yet it is not art. Neither is surrealistic paintings, movies, etc. in my opinion.

How does a crucified Jesus on a leviating hypercube or a range of deformed pocket watches communicate anything meaningful at all?

Of course they had a point in making it, but a point or an idea is not enough. For their works to be considered art, they must also be able to communicate their ideas in a meanningful way.

Rand may have loved it (though it surprises me to hear that), but that doesn't make it an art. Surrealist paintings are at best pointless and free of value-judgement, and at worst they communicate relativism, inconsistency and irrationality.

I don't think Objectivism even recognizes surrealism as art. It's certainly possible to like surrealistic movies, paintings, etc., but it's not an art. Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. (The Romantic Manifesto)

Help spreading the event http://www.facebook.com/lifehour?sk=info

I must say that I agree with you. However, it is the position of the classical liberal party in Norway (which is based on Objectivism) that one should never break the law. They have said something in the lines of "As a political party we are working to change the laws, and then we cannot encourage people to break them.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an existing topic. - sN *** I've heard Objectivists argue that one should never break the law even if the law is not objective, because in doing so one communicates to others that it's OK to break laws that one doesn't agree with, and if everybody follows this example we'll end up with anarchy. What do you think of this reasoning?