Boydstun

I was using the politician quoting merely as one public token. Another political token of the culture knowing something of Rand would be Obama's reference to "the virtue of selfishness" and his reliance on the public's widespread rejection of such a thing. A Sunday school teacher warding the students away from reading Rand would be a token of her becoming mainstream; I just don't have a public example of it. Protestantism is mainstream without having a politics. There is nothing inherent in Objectivism to take institution of its political philosophy as a necessary condition for rating the philosophy mainstreamed. Philosophy need not be primarily a tool for political aspirations. Aristotle was not championed by the founders of this country, I should say. Objectivism, by the way, is not going to have its Politics comprehensively applied in American culture. What is taken for just under the law changes here, but it is not going to land on Objectivist Politics, entirely coinciding. Not ever, while we are a democratic republic, and when we are not, we are no longer America. One can be successful and happy without the dream of perfect justice being taken for a real possibility. One might continue to march for it only by loving justice, all the same, I imagine.

The significant ideas Peikoff planted in Rand were in metaphysics and epistemology. They are disguised as simply Rand. When one reads Rand in her ITOE speaking of such things as logical empiricism and the synthetic-analytic dichotomy, that is surely input from recent Ph.D. Peikoff. She had her ITOE immediately followed in her journal The Objectivist by Peikoff's article "The Synthetic-Analytic Dichotomy." That was his most important original contribution to Objectivism that was out in the open. Rand mentioned that when she had written in GS the portion in which she said she was completing Aristotle (identity and identification), she did not know the full significance of what she had contributed in the history of philosophy. She had learned that significance only later from an associate, she said. Bet a coke it was Peikoff. Ditto for the book on Pragmatism from which she quotes in setting out the problem of universals in the intro to ITOE. When you read the appendix added to ITOE, transcriptions of her epistemology seminar, it is clear there are two "Professors" (B and E) who are on the intellectual dais with Rand (Gotthelf and Peikoff); she relied on them for understanding what others are getting at at times and for history of philosophy. All the while, from grad school to the end of Rand's substantial output (her participation in Peikoff's 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism", Peikoff is raising issues in philosophy (theoretical philosophy, contemporary or classical) that Rand would otherwise know nothing of, and together they hammer out an Objectivist answer. Behind the mask of John Galt is Ayn Rand. Behind the mask of "Ayn Rand's Philosophy" is Ayn Rand and some helpers, most notably Leonard Peikoff. My point is not that you are incorrect if you buy the standard line on authorship of the philosophy Objectivism. My only point is that that line is implausible. (Independently, Robert Campbell reached the same conclusion.) I don't mean to be vindicating a widely unacknowledged contribution of Peikoff to what is, in the end, an amateur philosophy that addressed a number of standard issues in philosophy; he'd surely not like that. I'm just being realistic about the actual complexity that has been brushed under the rug. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For original or fairly original, for true or approximately true, and for important in this philosophy, I take these.

Good point. Hamas does not want to negotiate about anything. They want Israel gone. Israel must destroy Hamas in Gaza. Plan B – Direct Texas to become a new independent state of Israel. The relics of Jerusalem might be reassembled there. Many a political bible-thumper in recent decades has been aligned with Israel, and they could have Easter sunrise services at the new Jerusalem.

Pretentious balderdash like this you have with you always – etc. Leibniz was this fantastical, but with more interest and reasons. And when he posed that the cosmos was a watch in the pocket of a giant, he didn't suggest you take him seriously.

Trash to Steam

A poetic refreshment.

@tadmjones I was wondering. Did you take high school geometry? If so, did it go alright for you? Can you in your imagination draw a line segment with a straightedge? Can you imagine pegging a compass at one end of the segment, drawing an arc (say, a semicircle) by sweeping the free end of that compass through the line segment with the arc being large enough to be intersecting the line segment visually well beyond the midpoint of the segment? Then leaving the opening of the compass in the same, peg it at the other end of the line segment and draw another semicircle intersecting the segment? Can you now see that the two semicircles intersect each other at two points, one above the line segment, one below it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Two books of related interest about the spatial character of all reasoning and imagination in reasoning: Space to Reason – A Spatial Theory of Human Thought (MIT 2013)by Markus Knauff Thinking through the Imagination (Fordam 2014) by John Kaag

Rohin, My guess would be that Objectivism will become more mainstream only by borrowed pieces. Portions of Galt's Speech read by Sen. Cruz in a filibuster a few years back is an epitome. Individualism, self-sufficiency, and independence of mind are heritage in America, and that cluster can continue to be revived as a live ideal by its boost from Rand. However, the pervasive allegiances in America to (i) heart-over-mind and (ii) self-sacrifice for others or country as handy and highest moral ideal show no sign of weakening. I'd expect those, as well as appeal to them as justification for expanding government programs, to continue. On the personal-life side, I'd guess that religion, perhaps watered down, will continue in the main. But alongside that, inconsistent as it may be, individuals will continue benefitting from Rand's picture of the goodness of loving oneself and some keys from Rand on how to make that love doable. Overall, then, I do not expect Objectivism-for-real to become more mainstream. That it will continue benefitting minds and lives—that much—beyond mine is pleasing. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for just that much.

"Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Rohin, I know it is customary and the official line that Peikoff merely consolidated Rand's ideas in this book stating her philosophy. I for one do not buy it. Peikoff was a significant source of many of the ideas in Rand's philosophy (always conferenced with Rand for concurrence) as set out in his 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism" and in his OPAR. And the same was the case for N. Branden in stating the philosophy in his lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism", which has a more psychological emphasis than the statements of the philosophy by Peikoff. OPAR is the primary systematic statement of the philosophy, and I expect it to retain that standing. Blackwell's Companion to Ayn Rand is an example, I imagine, of pure consolidation of that philosophy (leaving aside a few departures from Rand put forth as Rand in that tome).

"John Rawls the father of DEI as intellectual" John Rawls and Fair Equality of Opportunity "The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud applying Kantian ideas" Kant and Freud

Does anyone have a link to any of these podcasts?

I remarked: I should have mentioned right after that sentence: Rand, A. 1968. Basic Principles of Literature. O 7(Aug):497–504.

KyaryPamyu, thank you for these good objections an angles. The dark paintings of Ivan Albright may have been triggered by what he witnessed in WWI. We don't really know. In connection with your hypothetical suffering person, I naturally thought of the actual artist Nietzsche. He suffered so horribly physically all the years he was producing Daybreak, Gay Science, Zarathustra, and beyond, yet his works seem more like motion upward beyond his daily suffering. I'd conclude at least that one's condition and life course does not necessarily settle what from the creator will be important to communicate.

References for the Preceding Post Bissell, R. 1997. The Essence of Art. Objectivity 2(5):33–65. ——. 2004. Art as Microcosm. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 5(2):307–63. Crowther, P. 2007. Defining Art, Creating the Canon. Oxford. Peikoff, L. 1991. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Dutton. Plato c. 428–348 B.C. Plato – Complete Works. J. M. Cooper, editor. 1997. Hackett. Rand, A. 1960. For the New Intellectual. Title essay. Signet. ——. 1961. The Objectivist Ethics. In The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet. ——. 1963. The Goal of My Writing. The Objectivist Newsletter (ON) 2(10):37–40, 2(11):41–42. ——. 1965a. The Psycho-Epistemology of Art. ON 4(4):15–16, 18. ——. 1965b. Art and Moral Treason. ON 4(3):9–10, 12–14. ——. 1966a. Art and Sense of Life. The Objectivist (O) 5(Mar):33–40. ——. 1965b. Art and Moral Treason. ON 4(3):9–10, 12–14. ——. 1971. Art and Cognition I. O 10(Apr):1009–17. Stroud, S. R. 2011. John Dewey and the Artful Life. Penn State.

In the preceding post, I should have included: Rand, A. 1958 [2000]. Lectures on Fiction Writing. In The Art of Fiction. T. Boeckmann, editor. Penguin. Rand specified a function of art beyond its beckon of experience and contemplation for its own sake. Art has integral place in the realm of life functions (cf. Greater Hippias 295c–e on the fine). In its selective re-creations of reality, according to Rand, art isolates and integrates aspects of reality to yield a new concrete that can serve certain functions for the human psyche (1965a, 16). The highest goal Rand had in her novels was the portrayal of ideal men. The experience of meeting those characters in the stories is an end in itself. She aimed for a story offering an experience worth living through for its own sake, and she aimed for protagonists to be a pleasure to contemplate for their own sake (Rand 1963, 37). That kind of contemplation, in all art, serves a human need, the need for moments sensing as complete the life-long struggle for achievement of values (41). Notice that the concept of contemplation here is broad enough to include rapture, esthetic rapture (cf. Crowther 2007, 35–36). There is that Randian integration in the esthetic experience of art. However, there are other kinds of contemplation of art for its own sake besides that one, I should say, important and lovely as that one is. American Heritage Dictionary defines art as “the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; specifically, the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.” The types after the semicolon are the specific types most typically meant when the term is used in the general sense of art preceding the semicolon. This dictionary has nine other senses in which art is used, but the one quoted here is the one pertinent to this discussion. On Rand’s definition, art is “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments” (1965a, 16). I am not persuaded that all art under the dictionary definition I just quoted nor that all of what should be grouped under art is captured by Rand’s theoretical explanatory definition. Her definition holds for a major subclass of art. We are able to sense the feelings indicated in a great variety of created illusions, or re-creations of reality. One would expect the same for artists, and some artists might have considerable success in expressing a sense of life not their own. It is only a slight modification, a slight broadening of Rand’s definition to say art is a selective re-creation of reality according to metaphysical value-judgments, therewith leaving in suspension how much they are favored by the artist, if at all. Rand observed that “every religion has a mythology—a dramatized concretization of its moral code embodied in the figures of men who are its ultimate product” (1965a, 16). Such characters and their associated deeds and ordeals, when visualized in a drawing or painting or sculpture, I should say and likely Rand would say, do not bring a moral sense of life to the artwork by their iconographical status. The means of sense of life, including moral sense of life, in a work of art are from other elements in the work, not iconography. In Rand’s “For the New Intellectual” (1960), she had conceived of human consciousness as preserving some continuity and as demanding “a certain degree of integration, whether a man seeks it or not” (18). Philosophy should formulate “an integrated view of man, of existence, of the universe” (22). “Man needs an integrated view of life, a philosophy, whether he is aware of his need or not” (18). Rand saw art as addressing a related need for integration. “Art is a concretization of metaphysics” (Rand 1965a, 16). It provides the power to summon in a full, perceptually conscious focus, a condensation of the chains of abstract concepts forming man’s “fundamental view of himself and of his relationships to reality” (16). Rand elaborated further what she meant by a sense of life. It is a person’s “generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant, basic emotion—an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences” (1966a, 17). This generalized feeling she took to be the result of a subconscious integration summing the history of one’s psychological activities, one’s reactions and conclusions. This conception of sense of life is an extension of her earlier notion that human consciousness preserves willy-nilly some continuity and demands a certain degree of integration (1961, 18). Rand found metaphysical, cognitive, and evaluative linkages in art. Her final characterization of their assembly was under her concept of a metaphysical value-judgment. Rand’s explications of sense of life and metaphysical value-judgments are in terms of metaphysics that bears on human life and the role and character of values in it. She said that a sense of life sums up one’s view of man’s relationship to existence. That suggests that when she said this subconsciously integrated appraisal that is sense of life includes appraisal of the nature of reality, she was confining the metaphysical appraisal to implications for moral, human life. That would include some notion of the intelligibility or lack thereof in existence in general and in living existence in particular. It is, I think, overly restrictive to confine the metaphysical in art to man’s relationship to reality, that is, to Rand’s metaphysical value-judgments. That said, Rand’s house of metaphysical value-judgments itself need not be so restrictive as one might first think from her list of metaphysical value-questions. For example, to ask whether the universe is intelligible is also to ask whether existence is one and interconnected within itself and whether a negative judgment on that question-couple leaves existence intelligible and, if so, differently so than were existence truly one and highly interconnected. This would seem to be an expansion of Rand’s list of questions, remaining within her conception, because the judgments the question and its subsidiaries invite are metaphysical and bear on basic human purposes. Rand’s compact definition of art is intended to cover arts literary and visual (and more). When she says these works are re-creations of reality, one needs to remember two things implicit in that conception: imagination and stylization. An artist stylizes reality in his re-creations. In that, re-creations are his (his/her) integration of facts and his metaphysical evaluations, and these are set concrete in his selection of theme and subject, brushstroke and word, and indeed in all his craft with elements of the medium (Rand 1966a, 35; 1971, 1011–12). I should stress that one might concur with Rand’s definition of art, yet one might disagree with Rand’s analysis of various artworks within that framework. In her 1963, Rand characterized misery, disease, disaster, and evil as negatives in human existence and “not proper subjects of contemplation for contemplation’s sake. In art, and in literature, these negatives are worth re-creating only in relation to some positive, as a foil, as a contrast, as a means of stressing the positive—but not as an end in themselves” (38). Within Géricault’s The Raft of the Medusa, one sees people who have already died, people in despair, and people with hope, waving to get the attention of a very distant ship. This painting fits squarely within what Rand described as having a subject containing negatives of human existence, yet also a positive in contrast, and worthy of contemplation for contemplation’s sake. When it comes to the great negatives in life, I have some reservations concerning Rand’s idea that negatives are unworthy as whole subjects of a work of art. Sometimes there is widespread common background of the beholders, who know the subject is from a larger story with its road to a positive; such would be a painting showing only that the dead Jesus is being taken down from the cross. War scenes as subjects of artworks, containing no positive aspects in the subject, may have viewers who know some history from which the scene is taken and some evaluation of that history, possibly positive. On the other hand, a war scene—say, a massacre—as subject of a painting, might be effective in inducing the horribleness of such an event to a viewer and nothing more than that horror. I would not want to contemplate that painting so much that I put it on the living room wall opposite me just now, in place of the triptych of Monet’s water lilies spanning that wall. However, the well-executed massacre painting might be worth my contemplation in a memorial museum of the event or in an art museum, where one passes from one feeling of life to another. Rand was aiming for what has been called a “‘wrapper definition’ that attempts to cover the entire extension of a concept,” rather than only “an evaluative characterization of what the best forms of art aspire to be like” (Stroud 2011, 5). Rand took up the challenge of showing literary and nonliterary art-forms to be distinctive and explicable under a definition, her definition of art, which is, we recall: “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” In the course of her examinations of various art-forms, we learn more about what she means by re-creation of reality in the way of art. For poetry without story or characterization—say, Rossetti’s Silent Noon—Rand does not take up the challenge of articulating how such poetry differs from so-called mood studies, thence, with that difference, how such poetry is art. The poem Silent Noon has a scene and an event. (The idea microcosm comes quickly to mind; see Bissell 1997; 2004.) In this poem, existence and human act are told of. They are re-creations of reality and the basic draw of the consciousness aroused in the readers. Imagined perceptions and induced feelings are aroused by what is said in the poem and how it is said, all well integrated. I don’t have an example of what Rand was calling literary mood studies, so I don’t know how it might differ from this sort of poem. Do such mood studies concretize a theme, but without re-creation of reality, without any showing of existence and purpose driving consciousness? This much is clear by Rand and satisfactory by me: an artistic selective re-creation is a re-integration, and for all art, not only literary, there will be a theme. For arts not literary, the theme will not be so fully expressed in words as in the medium, but it is there and is the large integrator. @123Me, Rand thought that Romantic art is the main source of a moral sense of life in the child and adolescent. “Please note that art is not his only source of morality, but of a moral sense of life. This requires careful differentiation. // A ‘sense of life’ is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics—an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man’s nature and the nature of reality, summing up one’s view of man’s relationship to existence. Morality is an abstract, conceptual code of values and principles.” (Rand 1965b, 10) Having moral content was not a requirement in Rand’s view for something to be art. A Rothko would fall short in whatever are the ways “mood studies” would fall short, under Rand’s theory, I suggest. In “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” Rand wrote that art fulfills a need for end-in-itself concretization of metaphysical value-judgments. That is consonant with her idea, stated earlier in “The Goal of My Writing,” that the function of art is to supply moments of sensing as complete the life-long struggle for achievement of values. In the later essay “Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” Rand was not broadening her view of what is “the” function of art; she was only articulating more of the means by which it fulfills that function (see also Rand 1966a, 34, 36–37, and 1971, 1009). In Rand’s view, there are other enjoyments in art besides fulfillment of that function, but no other function (1966a, 39). About psycho-epistemology: Rand and her circle had been using the term to refer to an individual’s characteristic method of awareness. Is the time scope of his outlook brief or long? Is his concern only with what is physically present? Does he recoil into his emotions in the face of his physical life and need for action? How far does he integrate his perceptions into conceptions? Is his thinking a means of perceiving reality or justifying escape from reality? (Rand 1960, 14, 19, 21). Art performs the psycho-epistemological function, in Rand’s view, of converting metaphysical abstractions “into the equivalent of concretes, into specific entities open to man’s direct perception” (1965a). Rand held art to be a need of human consciousness. As an adult, I produced only one sort of artistic creation, and that was composition of poetry. From that, I accede, at least in the realm of those creations, that I have a sense of life and that it is singular. This seems correct, even though I wrote quite a variety of poems. I’ll try to add an example at the end of this post. (The painting, so suited to the poem, is detail of a Bierstadt.) I would be hard put, however, to state what is that sense of life. Importance is the concept Rand took to be key in formation of a sense of life. She then restricted importance to a fundamental view of human nature. A sense of life becomes an emotional summation reflecting answers on basic questions of human nature read as applying to oneself. Such questions would be whether the universe is knowable, whether man has the power of choice, and whether man can achieve his goals (Rand 1966b, 19). In development of one’s sense of life in childhood and adolescence, Rand was thinking of more particular forms or ramifications of those broad questions in application to oneself. Later the broad questions themselves can be formulated and generalized to human kind, not only oneself. Importance as Rand’s criterion of esthetic abstraction is a salient criterion in such abstraction, but the broader criteria of significance and meaningfulness also sort the esthetic from the purely cognitive and normative types of abstraction. To two overly narrow restrictions in Rand’s esthetics—function of art and criterion of esthetic abstraction—I should add a third. Rand’s range of philosophical issues going into the makeup of all the facets of one’s sense of life might well be too limited. The fundamental importance-questions whose emotional answers are vested in a sense of life were the same as Rand had listed the previous year in spelling out what are metaphysical value-judgments. Those questions had been: “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 of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?” (1965a, 16) That last question would seem at first blush to be a normative question, rather than a metaphysical one. I suggest, however, that it is a question for (i) the metaphysics of life and value in general, to which, as metaphysical fact, man is no alien and (ii) for the metaphysics of mind joining (i) (see also Peikoff 1991, 189–93).