Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan13

  1. I disagree. Youre treating music as if melody were necessarily its primary characteristic or means of aesthetic expression. It's not, at least not in all cases or instances. Rap's primary musical means is rhythm. Rap is the same thing as traditional operatic patter song, only taken further in its rhythmic vocabulary. In effect, modern rap is what Howard Roark would do to patter song. The patter -- the beat and tempo -- are more expressive than the words. Try it yourself: Isolate both and experience each independently of the other. The words are dry and rather lifeless without the specific rhyt
  2. And if you've had any previous experience with conspiracy theorists and their supporters, you've probably developed something of a subconscious smell-test, in which you pick up on the kooky vibe that the theorists are giving off. And beyond that, if you've had first-hand experience in your personal area of expertise in which you've reviewed and very effectively criticized the kooks' "evidence," and then watched them squirm, dodge and evade the criticism, and cling to false positions in spite of the evidence, you've probably acquired an even more sensitive nose for sniffing out kookiness.
  3. Sure, some music can communicate some emotions to some people (and by "communicate," I mean convey the composer's intended meaning), especially when accompanied by "outside considerations," such as the images and storyline of a film which it is a part of. Most music, without accompanying "outside considerations" does not. It's very common fo I ndividuals to experience differing emotions and meanings in the same piece of music. The same is true of colors and non-representational shapes. Whether they're the components of architecture or absract paitings, some works can communicate to s
  4. Well, certain members here have been saying that there is an Objectivist sense of life, and only one, and they've also tied that position to at least implicit statements about others not "integrating" the philosophy well enough, and have also sort of mimicked Rand and her old inner circle in advising others to "check their premises." In other words, the behavior appears to be following the very typical tack of parroting Rand while posing as being highly moral, intellectually superior, and properly "integrated." But, at the same time, the proof is missing. So, it looks like bluff and
  5. False.You were asked to prove something; to back up statements and positions with research and testing. In response, rather than offering any proof, you asserted that one does not prove philosophical tenets the same way one does special science theory via research or testing.Well, there is no other means of proving anything. What do you imagine that the concept “proof” means? You seem to be saying that there is some method other than scientific research and testing which can quality as proof. If that’s what you’re saying, then please identify what that method consists of. Please identify the n
  6. I really don't know what the proposed and hoped-for "objective conceptual vocabulary" of music could possibly entail, but it seems that it's supposed to be something like a language or mathematical equation: Certain arrangements/conbinations of musical elements -- notes, chords, rests, tempo, etc. -- are to add up to and communicate one specific meaning, allowing for no rational disagreement or differences in interpretation. In other words, the chord structure of G then D then C then back to G would equal the concept of, say, "contentment," just as the letters in the word "contentment" add up
  7. Another possible explanation is that musical interpretations and tastes are subjective, and two different people who have very similar outlooks on life, similar "senses of life," and identical philosophical beliefs can interpret musical styles very differently due to each person necessarily having very different -- individual -- life experiences: they each relate any piece of music to their own personal experiences, as opposed to the idea that the same experiences should be communicated via an objective "conceptual vocabulary." The same is true of the other abstract art forms, such as arc
  8. Based on what? How would you propose to objectively prove that you've identified others' senses of life? J
  9. Additional options are that she exempted herself from her own statement about not being able to identify others' senses of life (SHE could identify others' senses of life, but no one else could rise to that ability); or she used the term with different meanings (when she spoke of the American sense of life, she was talking about an overall impression or vibe that she felt rather than something that she could state with objective certainty -- she was generalizing, of perhaps even expressing her hope or expectation of what Americans might or ought to be). J
  10. Of course it fails to project those virtues by the standard that you mention. So, what can we logically conclude? We have two options: 1) Rand's novel, We The Living, according to her own stated theory, reveals that she held a "malevolent universe premise," or 2) the aesthetic theory which misdiagnoses artists such as her as having a "malevolent universe premise" must be flawed and is need of revision. So, how do we decide. Rand wrote quite a lot on her views of man and existence, including the fact that she held the same basic views and sense of life since as far back as should
  11. As Rand said, you can't know the sense of life of other people, including your best friend. So all of this is subjective speculation about something that you can't objectively measure or know. J
  12. Indeed! Objectivism stands for individuality, so it's often disturbing to me to see Objectivists looking to conform to an alleged "Objectivist Sense of Life," and to imply or outright state that other individuals aren't quite up to par and Objectivist enough, or fully "integrated," if they have differing tastes, interpretations and preferences in music. An additional factor that Objectivists rarely address is knowledge and experience with the various arts. I've worked professionally as a visual artist for over four decades. Might it be possible that I have some knowledge and experience in
  13. And upon what did she base that opinion? Anyone could assert that anything will one day be found to be objective once scientific knowledge expands! Why socialists and communists could say that socialism and communism will one day have objective proof which will prove that those systems are right. But that's not the way that philosophy works. Objectivist philosophy in particular deals with reality, and with actuals and not potentials. It is supposed to be based only on what exists, not what is hoped to one day exist. J
  14. That's only your subjective interpretation of the piece of music, and it's by no means the only possible interpretation. Breathy, elongated tones could also be taken to be expressions of yearning and desire, among many other possibilities. Besides, even if such a musical style were intended to be an expression of sighs or frustration, it doesn't logically follow that the artist who created the piece views all of existence as helplessness and futility. Art is not anywhere near to being that simplistic. A sigh might express disappointment at something stupid or painful that happened, but it
  15. Sorry that you misunderstood, but in the full context of the discussion, I thought it was clear that I don't think that there will be a "conceptual vocabulary" for music. It's not possible. That's not how it works. Such vocabularies aren't discovered to already exist. Rather, they are created, and the used, not the other way around. Music affects us without having an objective vocabulary. J
  16. No, that's mistaken. Rand was not identifying a means by which to judge someone else's sense of life. Rather, she was saying DO NOT JUDGE IT, and INSTEAD judge their phiosophical convictions. There is no philosophical premise of the music until there is first an objective "conceptual vocabulary." Your interpretations of music via believing that you're objectively identifying it's sense of life contradicts Objectivism on at least a couple levels. First, Rand explicitly stated that our musical tastes are a subjective matter. That includes you. You don't get to exempt yourself. Second, re
  17. False. One DOES prove philiposophical tenets, that is unless one's philosophy has nothing to do with reality! One must first observe the nature of reality and study the entities to which one will be applying philosophy. Perhaps you're confusing philosophy in general with axiomatic proposals? Axioms, and axioms alone, don't require proof. It does not follow that all of philosophy therefore requires no proof. "Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." One must actually observe entities in order to identify their natures. One can't just start with the axioms and then, wit
  18. False. Roark did act as a vigilante. He took matters into his own hands rather than pursuing justice through the justice system. Prior to that, however, he committed the fraud of passing if his work as someone else's, and knowingly and intentionally violated the rights of others not to hire him. He specifically secretly pushed his way onto the project despite stating that he knew that the owners would not want to hire him. as for your statement about drugs, and police brutality, again, your views are false. Objectivism stands for rights. Period. It doesn't become nonchalant about people's
  19. Yes, you supplied quotes, but quotes aren't proof of a philosophical position. Where is the research to back up the claim that a sense of life, or any other emotional state, can be reliably integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy? To me it seems that you're looking for a way to allow your emotional reactions to be considered "objective." It's like a shortcut. It's like saying, "No, I didn't carefully consider all of the evidence involved in this case, test any theories, or contemplate rigorous criticisms. Rather, I just felt my emotional response. But that's just as good
  20. I've been comparing Objectivists' interpretations and responses to artworks for a decade and a half now, and they definitely don't all respond the same or interpret individual works the same. Not at all. The only one thing that they appear to have in common is that, when facing differences of artistic interpretation and response, a very high percentage of them take the position that they are right and everyone else is wrong -- they each believe that they have more properly integrated Objectivism than all of their fellow Objectivists, and have acquired more the ultimate in rational command over
  21. All of reality IS NOT objective. Objectivity is a process. It's mental activity. Some mental activity is subjective. J
  22. Very well said! Darkness in art doesn't mean that the artist or fans of his work are anti-man, nihilistic, or whatever. That's way too simplistic and naive of an interpretation. Dark works, such as We The Living, are usually explorations into how we handle adversity. To me, Rand's view of art is that it boils down to a simulation experience as a model-building guide to living. It's like stepping into a Star Trek holodeck. The idea isn't limit yourself to sunshine and bunnies and happy gumdrop fun times, but also to challenge yourself, and to experience some fears and few brushes with pote
  23. You are correct! But, despite the fact that Rand never mentioned the lack of objective "conceptual vocabularies" for any of the other art forms other than music, she never actually identified any either, other than that of literature (which would need no one pointing out its conceptual vocabulary since it's readily self-apparent that literature deals with language, which is by definition a conceptual vocabulary). Neither Rand nor any other Objectivist has ever proven/demonstrated that non-literary works can actually reliably meet her criteria for art: It has not yet been shown that,
  24. My answer is that there is no way to objectively determine if any work of music is "compatible with Objectivism" or not, and that there will not be a way unless and until someone discovers and objectively identifies the missing "conceptual vocabulary" that Rand mentioned as being required for making objective judgments of music. J
  • Create New...