epistemologue

Yes. See my original post in this thread where my example was the genre of vocal trance in general:

I came into this thread after this question, but as I said in my first post here, there are two different ways of judging art given by Rand. First, he can be a big fan of heavy metal music for its technical, esthetic merit, even if it has a malevolent sense of life (or regardless of sense of life entirely), so he could absolutely defend his preference on that basis alone. Secondly is the question of whether or not it does actually display a malevolent sense of life or not. Where Jonathan quotes Ayn Rand talking skeptically about evaluating sense of life, she actually names exactly the method to do so: "Judge their philosophical convictions." By evaluating the philosophical premises of the music and whether they are adhering to a Benevelont Universe Premise / Benevolent People Premise (or malevolent on the contrary), you can judge the music's sense of life philosophically and objectively. So for example if the heavy metal music is presenting a deep, rich character of man's mind, but this character is reduced to incoherent screaming in pain and horror at the world, we can conclude it's contrary to the Objectivist sense of life by virtue of its Malevolent Universe Premise. Such an objective analysis based on a "conceptual vocabulary" is exactly what I'm doing here, based on the foundation Rand laid for it in The Romantic Manifesto.

Drug use should be legal but that doesn't mean it's moral. There's no rational reason to get righteously indignant about some self-destructive addict unable to legally get high. In no way is that person "persuing values". Objectivists absolutely do not endorse "going vigilante" (and neither do you, apparently) - that's not remotely what Howard Roark did or who he was as a character. Killing cops is not the "retaliation against the initiation of force"; it's criminal. There's no reason to "experience a positive aesthetic response" to this as a Romantic, at least not for the reasons you're giving (though I can think of other more Romantic justifications for enjoying some rap or metal music). On the contrary, the idea of struggling for one's values and being unable to succeed is a demonstration of a Malevolent Universe Premise; it's an anti-volitional aesthetic - it's specifically *not* Romantic by Rand's definition. This goes right into the category Rand outlined with Byron and Shakespeare - heroic characters who are doomed to fail.

Nicky summed up the point well earlier:

Yes, exactly! As for "Objectivist art" - Rand was describing exactly this in The Romantic Manifesto - it's the Romantic school of art.

If you read just beyond this quote in the actual chapter of the book, "To the extent to which a man is mentally active, i.e., motivated by the desire to know, to *understand*, his mind works as the programmer of his emotional computer - and his sense of life develops into a bright counterpart of a rational philosophy." So it's not purely this "subconscious" thing that happens without any connection to your conscious activity. She describes how your subconscious sense of life does follow from your philosophical premises - held implicitly or explicitly. "A sense of life represents a man's early value integrations, which remain in a fluid, plastic, easily amendable state, while he gathers knowledge to reach full *conceptual* control and thus to *drive* his inner mechanism. A full conceptual control means a consciously directed process of cognitive integration, which means: a conscious *philosophy* of life." So yes, there ought to be a distinctively Objectivist sense of life which follows from the Objectivist philosophy.

There are two different ways of judging art. You can judge it by its sense of life, or it's technique. Something with a poor sense of life but executed superlatively can still be judged as "good art" esthetically. Rand gives examples of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy as artists with a malevolent sense of life, and in the case of Tolstoy's art she personally disliked and found boring, but yet in both cases they have to be judged as great art. Likewise something executed poorly, even with a good sense of life, can be judged as "bad art" esthetically. That's not necessarily to say it's "incompatible with Objectivism", so much as just making the point that it's bad art, as an objective judgment. Peikoff has a great lecture called "The Survival Value of Great Art", answering this question: "Can artworks that are based on false or mixed premises satisfy a rational man's need for art? If so, how? More specifically why should one enter the dark world of Dostoyevsky or the deterministic world of Tolstoy? What benefit can there be from experiencing such art when the philosophy they concretize blatantly contradicts one's own?" His answer is that there is definitely tremendous value to art (even when based on incompatible philosophical premises) - "what you get from soul-nourishing, life-enhancing great art", and that those missing out are "spiritually starved, whether they know it or not, because art is a crucial need of man". His point is along the lines that the distinctive value of great art is in the essentializing perspective of a great artist, and how it lets you view the world and your life in that essentialized manner. As far as incompatible sense of life goes - absolutely yes. Rand identifies the "Objectivist" school of art as the "Romantic" (in her book, The Romantic Manifesto) - this she describes as the distinctively *volitional* school of art. In order to have art that represents man's *volition*, you need two basic metaphysical premises - that the world is an intelligible place open to man's understanding and affected by man's actions, and that man himself is capable of understanding and making volitional choices - i.e. benevolent universe premise and benevolent people premise. The Romantic school combines both of these, whereas other schools tend to drop one or the other. For example she describes the poets such as Lord Byron or Shakespeare who create deep, rich characters, but those characters are trapped in a world where they are unable to achieve their values and drive the plot by their chocies - or, as in popular action novels, there's a world with a rich plot driven by the characters' choices, but the characters themselves are shallow and uninspiring. In either case, there are metaphysical premises behind the artist's sense of life contradictory to the nature of volition and the Objectivist philosophy and sense of life. Just to reiterate, art based on philosophical premises incompatible with those of Objectivism can still be *good* art, and can still be a tremendous value and serve a crucial needed of man. Specifically you ask regarding music - what styles of music are based on philosophical premises incompatible with Objectivism? First of all, within a given style you can express good or bad philosophical premises, depending on the content of the work. That being said, a particular syle does have a particular sense of life which can "slant" or "color" the content being displayed, and the philosophical premises of that style can be compatible or incompatible with Objectivism. Think for example of a picture of a bright sunny day which is then put through a sepia filter: Or with music, you can change the speed, the instruments, the tonality, etc. As for a style with an incompatible sense of life with Objectivism, take for example vocal trance. The breathy, elongated tones of the woman singing expresses a futility or helplessness, like things are happening and you have no influence over them. This is a prototypical example of a malevolent universe premise style opposed to the romantic Objectivist style.

He didn't specifically use those words or anything like them. Maybe you're thinking of something else? I think you guys are giving him a lot of undeserved blame. "When Cruz finally came on stage, one of the first statements he made was an affirmation of what the other two had said about him." - he specifically praised Glenn Beck for being a principled constitutionalist, which is true and praiseworthy. I don't see how his positions on religious freedom, abortion, gay marriage, or illegal immigration are somehow contrary to Rand's ethics. I know he has a different opinion on abortion than Rand, but I don't see that as an ethical difference specifically.

I just watched this... I didn't hear Cruz ever mention "the virtues of faith, self-sacrifice and humility". That isn't a message I've ever heard from him that I can recall.

Do you have a reference for this? I've never heard a speech by him to that effect before.

In what way does Cruz act like her ethics didn't matter?

I found it on youtube here: Any thoughts? I'm watching it now.

So you think it's morally justified to steal from someone as long as you pay them back according to some measure of the "fair" value of their property? Do you support eminent domain? Or does this only apply to "emergency" situations?

Louie this is a really good point. Objectivists have a big problem assigning moral blame to someone who hasn't even thought through the implications. There's way more room for errors of knowledge than people are given credit for.

hey, welcome to OO. Come drop into the chatroom sometime! http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/chat/

"privilege" seems to be a popular term for this sort of thing these days

Awesome, glad to have you. Come drop into the chatroom sometime!

That's a good question, unfortunately it's hard to find these days. You have to look under "Browse" then go to "Chat". Or use this link: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/chat

why would it?

Hey there, welcome back. Come drop into the chatroom sometime!

Are there objective aesthetic standards? If you want to say it comes down to aesthetic preference and sense of life, are you saying that it's purely subjective, based on however you feel, for whatever reasons you happen to feel that way? Or would you agree that there are objective standards of aesthetics, and your preference can be right or wrong for objective reasons?

Metaphysics does not change depending on what situation you are in. Just because you're not in a metaphysically normal situation doesn't mean metaphysics itself is any different, only the situation itself is abnormal. Your moral principles ultimately grounded in metaphysics do not change, they simply are applied to this particular situation. Look, life and death are at stake. If you have a will to live, what ought you to do in order, causally, to maximize your life and to defeat death, over the long term? If some action leads to your death in the short term (doesn't "cause" it), is it ultimately for or against your life, in the long term? If death can be overcome by the creative work and productivity of men, that is an important long-term consideration when it comes to choosing your actions such that they maximize your life. If the non-aggression principle is an important principle of maximizing the creative work and productivity of man, then that is going to be an important principle for maximizing your life. You can't look at it as superficially as only seeing the immediate, short-term effects. You need to know what it means over the long-term. Moral principles are the best possible way to pursue life over the long run. The invention of immortality and resurrection are the only long-term solutions to staying alive. The best way to pursue those is living and acting on principle, respecting the rights of others' life and creative work and property. Even if it kills you in the short term. If you assume death can be overcome, then my argument is not some support of "disemboded" identity or values. My take on that is this: I'm not sure about the metaphysics involved, but you can imagine purely scientific answers to this kind of thing, that are not completely disproven by our current level of understanding. Why make the assumption that it's impossible? Given the uncertainty of the laws of physics and how they will ultimately come down on this point, shouldn't a benevolent universe premise lead you to the opposite assumption? I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm saying it's an assumption in the face of uncertainty based on the benevolent universe premise - that there is no inherent contradiction to identity or the conditions of existence. What I said about spiritual values is this: "The spiritual values one pursues are far more important and consequential than anything physical that one can accomplish". This is not meant to be a vacuous, "disembodied" idea. An individual physical, material value is particular and limited whereas spiritual values are broader, they encompass a vast multitude beyond any particular material thing. For example, a virtue makes a lifetime of difference, an added value in many instances throughout one's entire life. It's a fundamental that is a means to many other values, whereas any particular physical thing is only a value in and of itself. The physical consequences are not being lost just because your body dies in the short term. It's specifically the power of one's spiritual values and one's principles which best serve one's practical, physical ends over the long run. So this is not losing the physical part - it's actually the best possible pursuit of the practical, physical part. The moral is the practical.

-Criticism of responses so far- To those of you saying morality does not apply, contrast the two positions taken by Ayn Rand here: and here: Why has nobody in this thread defended the unequivocal statements of Ayn Rand in her original, definitive work, "The Ethics of Emergencies", written to address this very question, featured in the canonical book of Objectivist ethics, "The Virtue of Selfishness"? Why instead have they taken these other comments - which are highly contradictory to the canonical position of the Objectivist ethics, from an obscure Q&A session given years later, on a lecture concerning a very different subject - as not only the more important and more defining, but apparently the only position that anyone has even bothered to really consider here? As Ayn Rand states in "The Ethics of Emergencies" very explicitly: morality always applies, to all of one's choices. When one is dealing with the circumstances of an emergency, that is merely another instance where one must apply their moral principles. You can always have a "long-term outlook of flourishing" and act accordingly, regardless of what situation you find yourself in currently. Devil's Advocate makes great points - How can you say that morality applies on a desert island - and that it doesn't apply on a lifeboat? StrictlyLogical also points out the reality that emergencies are still situations where man has a choice and must act - and therefore where morality must apply: -Answering the Question- - If the scenario is as dream weaver described, where you're in Alaska and there are cabins about with food stocked that are not in use, and it's the social convention that one lost in the wilderness in an emergency is expected to be able to use these resources, then it wouldn't really be stealing. - The original question is instead about a tent in the desert, where there's not necessarily any implied convention that you can use resources that you find because it's an emergency. Someone may even very well depend on those resources for their own life. But the original question is a little ambiguous - suppose you arrive at the tent on the verge of death, and nobody is home. The actions in that situation of a rational, benevolent person would be to share part of what they have with you given your desperate emergency, and in the absence of any definitive knowledge about their consent that's a fair assumption to make given a benevolent people premise (provided you assume this justly puts you in debt to them and will repay it on their terms). - To answer the question in the fullest sense, we have to ask what should one do given the premise that the tent owner is there when you arrive, and even against benevolence and rationality they still explicitly deny consent to take their things. How could following the non-aggression principle to your very death be consistent with holding life as the highest value? One might try to argue that holding life as the highest value doesn't simply mean a *physical life*, but rather a *moral life*, in the same sense that man's highest purpose isn't merely "that which gives me pleasure" but rather, that which is the expression of my moral values AND gives me pleasure: The attempt here would be to say that you *are* holding life as your highest value, by saying: by "life" you mean only a "principled life" - in this case a life of following the non-aggression principle. However, this still doesn't really answer the question in its fullest sense. The will to live is the most fundamental principle of morality by virtue of being the most fundamental aspect of man's identity - as an organism who by nature faces the life or death alternative. Therefore one cannot ultimately make the argument that the will to principle and morality somehow supercedes the will to live, when life-sustaining action is the root of moral principles. In order to answer the question one must show that the will to principle and the will to life are consistent - one must show that choosing to actually die for the non-aggression principle really is the best action to take in order to live. - The only way I know to answer this question is to say that death can be overcome and that we can have eternal life. By virtue of man's will to live, and the intelligibility and controllability of the nature of the universe, and given the lack of any complete proof of its impossibility and a benevolent universe premise, we should expect the progress of science and technology to, ultimately, reach the capability of immortal life and the resurrection of the dead. Just as Howard Roark says in the Fountainhead that, "The work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive" and "The integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor" The most effective way to follow one's will to live is to respect the creative work and property of others through the non-aggression principle, even to the point of dying on that hill. The spiritual values one pursues are far more important and consequential than anything physical that one can accomplish. Following one's principles is more practically effective in order to live in the long run than anything one would be able to physically do by violating them just to live a little while longer. This is how to reconcile holding life as the highest value with the principle of non-initiation of force.

First of all, it's not merely the "shape of one's genitalia". As I said, sex is a deep, organizing principle about the human body and its anatomy, its physiology, childhood development, psychology, and so on - not a small trait that is the not the basis of many other things. To answer your question - it would be an enormous, ongoing sacrifice for the rest of your life. One's choices of their most fundamental values affect one's decisions and actions over a long period of time as one pursues those values throughout their lives. Therefore, choosing an "optional value" which does further one's life, but does not further one's life as much as the choice of another value would have, requires the rejection or evasion of many higher-valued choices in many different instances over the long term. Errors in choosing one's fundamental values are the worst breaches of morality. As I said before, "The sense of pleasure, beauty, pride, self-esteem, and happiness that proceed from the achievement of one's moral values culminates nowhere greater than in the act of sex itself. In the highest, non-contradictory culmination, the principles of masculinity and femininity, based on one's innate sex, are expressed and emphasized in the act of sex. And in general, these principles should be expressed and emphasized consistently throughout every aspect of one's life - including one's choice of career - and should not be compartmentalized only to sex or romantic relationships, or as an abnormal exception in human life. To the degree one surrenders, renounces, or betrays these principles one is committing an immoral sacrifice." You would be doing specific harm along all of these lines of results, "pleasure, beauty, pride, self-esteem, and happiness" - and more. As Peikoff describes in "certainty and happiness", "Only he, the moral man selects ends and means consonant with the nature of existence and with the integrity of his own consciousness. Only he refuses to sabotage his person or his goals by indulging in out-of-context desires or fears. Only he therefore is *practical* - in other words able to acheive his values. And only he therefore can reach the emotional result *and reward* of such achievement. So we reach this crucial principle: *the moral, the practical, and the happy, cannot be sundered*. By their nature these three form a unity - and the explanation is in this principle. He who perceives reality is able to gain his ends and thus enjoy the process of being alive. He who perceives reality - the moral - is able to gain his ends - the practical - and thus enjoy the process of being alive - the happy. By the same token the evil, the impractical, and the unhappy, necessarily forms a unity. He who evades - the immoral - renders himself impotent - the impractical - and thus experiences life as suffering - the unhappy."

Welcome to OO, that's quite a story. Drop in the chatroom sometime! Other people are a huge value in one's life, but that's an interesting topic.