Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. To me it seems that any justification for anarchism,in any form, is based on the idea that implementations of principles are shown to be faulty, therefore principles are faulty. The fix then seems to be better implementation as opposed to pointing to the incidents of deviating from principle. Which suggests that principled action is impossible given a certain scale, which I would submit contradicts or negates the idea of principle in the first place.

  2. I thought I already explained before that we are all for a government of laws, we would like to see more law, and in fact we would like to see the law applying to the government, and that this would cause it to lose its monopolystatus; and furthermore, on those premises, states or monopolists of law are actually lawless. Nobody external to their group writes and enforces the laws among them. The government itself interprets whether or not it itself has broken laws which it itself has legislated. This is supposedly impermissible under a normative conception of the law, which is what Objectivists take under the concept of "objective law."

    If you are arugeing from the perspective that the current administration(and other administrations say since Garfield to pick a starting point) have operated outside of constitutional parameters , i would agree. That does not mean that the idea of a federal government vested with the objective of the protection of indidiual rights is wrong in principle.

    Nor do I think in principle, would the idea of incorporating other nation states into a federal system be unwarrnted. Take the example of Canada, culturally and geographically it would not be outrageous to posit that in principle the nation state of Canada could adopt the ideals in the US constitution and endeavor to work within that framework, setting aside the idea of local governance. Local governance would obviously have to conform to and operate within the context that the sole function of any govermental body is the recognition and protection of individual rights.

  3. Yes... and the former becomes the outgrowth of faith in the latter. Keep stretching rubber bands and sooner or later some are going to snap.

    I agree it seems medical science has been guided by a deterministic/mechanicist view especially concerning consciousness, which may well be a result of addressing biologic concerns with successful treatments of a chemical nature.
  4. To your list, I'd also add that mass murderers are a end product of a narcoculture. Where a nation of drug worshippers believe the lie that every conceivable personal physical, mental, and emotional moral problem known to man can be solved by ingesting just the right narcotic.

    I would add the caveat that the narcoculture ,as it were , should refer more to solving 'mental' pathologies than biologic eg chemothereapy. At present perhaps crude methodologies for treating biologic problems, I do not know whether or not for sure but I assume these chemicals have little or no adverse psycotropic properties.

  5. From Von Mises' conclusion in Bureaucracy

    "Public administration, the handling of the government apparatus of coercion and compulsion, must necessarily be formalistic and bureaucratic. No reform can remove the bureaucratic features of the government’s bureaus. It is useless to blame them for their slowness and slackness. It is vain to lament over the fact that the assiduity, carefulness, and painstaking work of the average bureau clerk are, as a rule, below those of the average worker in private business. (There are, after all, many civil servants whose enthusiastic fervor amounts to unselfish sacrifice.) In the absence of an unquestionable yardstick of success and failure it is almost impossible for the vast majority of men to find that incentive to utmost exertion that the money calculus of profit-seeking business easily provides. It is of no use to criticize the bureaucrat’s pedantic observance of rigid rules and regulations. Such rules are indispensable if public administration is not to slip out of the hands of the top executives and degenerate into the supremacy of subordinate clerks. These rules are, moreover, the only means of making the law supreme in the conduct of public affairs and of protecting the citizen against despotic arbitrariness."

    This idea leads to sustaining the principles of a government of laws and not men , no?

  6. In a rational society a constitutional govt would be predicated on the rcognition and protection of individual rights . It would be literally the principles. The officials would be the agents that act only those principles. A government of laws and not men. The underlying , foundational principle would be the recognition of individual rights, and the protection of freedom in practice.

    How would competition between men to be the agents of force, not be a government of men?

  7. And again, my goal is upholding and protecting a woman's individual rights as well as a newborn. How late is too late for abortion? that is the question that needs an answer. If something made a woman change her mind, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, not to give birth, she needs to know when that decision to abort is too late, so as her right to abortion does not violate the newborns right to life. When does it acquire those rights is essential to know. When it is born. When it is a physically separate living being, does it acquire rights, and the womans right to abortion ends.

    And added to the legal consequences would be other individuals that participate in such a procedure. Would it lead to indicting sellers of the labor inducing chemicals, assuming they have no other medicinal uses?

  8. I also enjoy the direction of the thread, especially the bit about oranges and what they signified in that context. I am trying to understand art more fully. I do think context in a piece is obviously extremely important.

    In the Warhol piece , I think what is lacking , for me, is a context. I didn't understand his intended context, which I see as a fault of the piece(that it doesn't have a perceptual context) it seems on the face to be images of a very utilitarian thing.

  9. It's just on our terms.

    Apparently we're supplying the right stimuli... like whenever I see a happy dog riding in a car with its head stuck out the window. ;)

    exactly we have a great dog, he is a recognized member of our family. Although he is in the proverbial dog house ,not fault, but its hunting season locally and apparently we have idiot hunters around,given the deer parts he has been getting into of late :(
  10. Whether it will affect prosecutions is one thing, but it has affected people in other ways. From the article:

    What about speech that constitutes non-physical harassment? Eg following someone around for months repeating "Jesus loves you". There should surely be restrictions on this.

    Perhaps on the 'following around', but not if say your boss/coworker/neighbor started every sentence with those words.
  11. While that is true... by using our understanding that animals are only amoral products of genetics and are solely responsive to environmental stimuli, we can and do form useful practical beneficial alliances with them. Seeing eye dogs are one example. Police K-9 units are another. Horses are another. Where I live, people regularly ride horses on the streets. Granted, it's more of a recreation now than when it used to be vital transportation, but nevertheless there is an agreement made with the horses on our terms of our understanding the limits of their behavioral parameters.

    There is no alliance or agreement with animals, just humans imposing their will. In some we respects we describe it as 'humane' treatment, but in reality it is recognising animal behaviour and providing the appropriate stimuli to get the animal to do the human's will.

  12. The chat room in this forum has little icons , the emoticons, at the bottom of the page to pick from. The one furthest on the right is animated one, it shows atlas dropping the globe and going off for a beer. That conveys , to me, a tongue and cheek self effacement through ironic humor aimed at mankind in general. But I don't consider it a work of art.

  13. I've read Kamhi and Torres. They make many good points and observations, but they also have a tendency to do what you've been doing on this thread: they smuggle in their own aesthetic limitations as the standard for judging what is or is not art -- they define the "casual observer" based solely on their own responses or lack thereof to art.


    They gave the accepted standard of casual observer from the Italian Renaissance as being an educated layman.

    Is an actual can of soup a work of art, if not how does recreating it make it so? A can of soup is a can of soup and the image of a can of soup is the image of a can of soup.

    It's all I see, I'm limited, you've said so. I suppose there really is a specialised knowledge needed to fully appreciate art, not just pretension unwilling to admit a mistake.

    It's possible I do not understand rand's aesthectics, but according to mine there needs to be some kind of cross cultural or universal aspect to the abstraction being concretised in a work of art. The specific example of the piece by Warhol could only be apprehended by an english speaking individual , so according to Tad it fails the test.

  14. But you haven't shown that images of soup cans don't concretise intelligible abstractions. All you've shown is that you are apparently incapable of identifying intelligible abstractions in images of soup cans. You've begun with the assumption that you are a "casual observer." But we haven't objectively tested and proved that you are. For all we know, you may be much less than a "casual observer" -- you might have difficulty with visual phenomena and its means of conveying intellectual and emotional content. So, we can't just accept your rating or grading yourself, or your attempt to establish your own reactions to art, or lack thereof, as the naturally assumed standard of normalcy.


    you have not shown that the soup cans are 'art', how is it I should prove a negative

  15. Are you appealing to authority? If so, I don't accept Kamhi and Torres as authorities, or anyone else. I only accept meritorious arguments.

    Why do you believe that images of soup cans cannot be art according to Objectivism? ideas.


    you could google the chapter and see whether or not you think their points are valid, it seems they consider what I believe is your jusification for labeling art as an arguement from authority.
  16. No. She did not leave the concept of art to be more broadly interpreted. There was no room in her stated criteria for anything which did not concretize abstractions on a perceptual level. Her position was that that which ceases to present an intelligible subject and meaning ceases to be art.


    Based on that criteria then, recreation of the visual image of cans does not concretise any intelligible abstraction, therefore is not art.

    Unless commercial billboards are considered to be art.

  17. How did you come to the conclusion that Warhol's images of soup cans do not qualify as art by the Objectivist definition? Objectivism defines art as "a re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Images of cans of soup are re-creations of things in reality, and no less so than any object in any still life which Objectivism accepts as art. They are stylized representations. They essentialize cans of soup in the same way that Rand described a painting of an apple essentializing the apple. The style that Warhol used presents the objects not as they are in reality, but as they "might or ought to be." They are stylisitically perfected and essentialized for the purpose of the expression of "metaphysical values."

    No. How could anyone believe that a re-creation of one object, such as an apple or a flower, is a valid work of art, but that the re-creation of another object, such as a balloon, is not a valid work of art?

    Who is "the viewer"? You? How did you determine that the works "connote no abstractions"? The fact that you are incapable of identifying meaning in a work of art does not mean that that inability is true of everyone. I and many other people don't have such limitations. We can identify abstractions in stylistic re-creations of balloons just easily as we can identify them is re-creations of apples, and just as easily as Rand identified them in re-creations of apples.


    Actually the more I think about, i was wrong to qualify my statements concerning art appreciation. One does not need a specialised knowledge to apprehend or appreciate a work of art. There is nothing in Rand's definition to suggest it , nor does she state it in any of her subsequent writing on the subject.

    Someone who can see in a piece the" art" that is not apparent to the casual observer is coming from some position of pretense.

  • Create New...