Jonathan13

A few questions: Why were libertarians ever judged collectively by Objectivists in the first place? Aren't we supposed to judge each individual on his own ideas and actions? Isn't that the just thing to do according to Objectivist principles? Brook says, "I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. It’s become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism." If one says that libertarianism is "less influenced" by Rothbard and the anarchist crazy wing, one is admitting that the Rothbardian anarchist crazies have not been eliminated from the movement, but that they are still active and exerting some influence. Therefore, in working with libertarians, one is joining in with those crazies, being tolerant of them, and sanctioning them according to the ARI's previous articles on the subject. Wasn't the primary Objectivist complaint about libertarians that they were willing to align with and be tolerant of crazies merely to form a united political front? Is the idea that now it's okay to band together with the crazies because there are fewer of them? If so, what objective principle was used in identifying the limit of crazies that an organization or movement may have, and beyond which joining their organization becomes an act of "sanctioning the sanctioners" of evil? When, and, more importantly, why, did principles and zero tolerance give way to a vague, undefined percentage and selective tolerance? J

Indeed, Murray Rothbard was never "in," which is why I wasn't referring to him. This discussion is about ARI Objectivists advising Objectivists not to associate with libertarians, and not to associate with those who associated with libertarians. So, those who were denounced, punished or "excommunicated" were fellow Objectivists, like David Kelley, for example. Are you aware of the history of the movement, and the reasons that certain people were denounced and invited to leave the movement? Who said anything about Rand? We're talking about the ARI's self-contradictory position on dealing with libertarians, not Rand's views or actions on the subject. Rand wasn't alive when the ARI was founded. She played no part in purging the movement of members due to their views on libertarians or their talking at libertarian events. I would suggest that you read the links that have been posted on this thread so as to understand the ARI's positions, and then also investigate the history of the movement, and the condemnations of Objectivists that have occurred due to their doing exactly the same thing that the ARI is now doing (and the same thing that Leonard Peikoff had been doing at the same time that Kelley was doing it -- promoting Objectivism by reaching out to libertarians). J

In addition to the essay On Moral Sanctions, The Intellectual Activist (while associated with the ARI and while Leonard Peikoff was listed as a contributing editor) also published an additional essay entitled On Sanctioning the Sanctioners which went even farther in identifying whom one must not associate with: those who associate with those who are not to be associated with! J

Indeed. Libertarianism hasn't changed. Brook's comments are rationalizations. A truly Objectivist explanation would be to admit to the truth, which is that double standards have been, and continue to be, employed. The initial condemnation of libertarianism and the command that people not sanction its sanctioners was constructed as nothing but an excuse to punish or "excommunicate" certain people. And it's perfectly transparent to rational observers. The Objectivist thing to do would be to apologize for past vices, not compound them. Have you ever wondered why Objectivism isn't catching on in the culture? This is one of the major reasons. Those who are most prominent in wanting to lead the movement frequently and very publicly show themselves to be incapable of practicing Objectivism in their dealings with their own organizational associates and colleagues. They seem to think that they have the authority or charisma to convince others that an A is not an A. J

Yaron Brook, from here: "I don’t think there’s been a significant change in terms of our attitude towards libertarians. Two things have happened. We’ve grown, and we’ve gotten to a size where we don’t just do educational programs, we do a lot more outreach and a lot more policy and working with other organizations. I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. It’s become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism. As a consequence, because we’re bigger and doing more things and because libertarianism has become more reasonable, we are doing more work with them than we have in the past. But I don’t think ideologically anything of substance has changed at the Institute." That sounds like a very significant change from the previous position. J

I just remembered that I had intended to return to an earlier false statement by Stephen, and to refute it with a direct quote form Rand. Stephen wrote: I was correct that Rand held the position that one has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or for no reason at all, that one has the right to refuse to deal with, hire or associate with anyone, including for irrational reasons, and that he has the right to use and dispose of his property as he sees fit. As a private property owner and employer, one has the right to hire or not hire anyone he wishes for any reason he wishes. No one, including Stephen, has the right to subvert a private employer's right to not hire him and to use his property as he chooses. Rand, VOS: "No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man. A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine—but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to protect a communist’s freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist’s right to the use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism." J

Then I would imagine that you'd get lost at quarter sentence when reading Wright, Sullivan, Neutra, Kahn, or any other architect on exactly the same subject (the effects of geometric shapes, colors and textures). In comparison, this woman was quite clear and easy to follow. J

One problem of the Objectivist Esthetics -- call it the left leg of the Procrustean Bed -- is its assertion that viewers and listeners must judge art without access to programs or other "outside considerations" -- that a work of art must be completely self-contained and communicate intended meanings on their own. No one ever seems to ask why, or to explain why. Outside of literature, there is a very, very long history of works of art relying heavily on such external sources of information. Music and paintings very frequently depend on knowledge of historical or mythical stories, and it is common knowledge that they viewer or listener is expected to be informed of these stories by means other than the art. If anyone would like to see the importance that outside considerations can play in the appreciation of visual art, watch some of Objectivist art teacher Luc Travers' videos in which he attempts to teach viewers how to "read" the content of visual art. In his videos, he inevitably resorts to relying on lots of outside information, and he instructs viewers of the stories, histories or context which inspired the paintings. In doing so, he unintentionally illustrates the importance of having access to all of the relevant outside considerations. People come to quite silly interpretations and judgments of paintings when they avoid knowledge of the artists' context, influences, intentions, etc. One cannot expect an artist to make his art universal across all times and cultures. Viewers must expect that they will have to consider the artist's time and culture before judging his work. For example, what might appear to a twentieth century novelist to be images of the "folks next door" might actually be exotically costumed, mythical characters to the seventeenth century artist who painted them. He shouldn't be expected to have to include educational material within his paintings which would inform the twentieth century novelist of the styles of dress that "the folks next door" of his time actually wore or did not wear. His art should not be required to be that pedantic and wearisome. Or it might be an indication that listeners who concluded that the music was a retelling of Robinson Crusoe are the better critics, and perhaps even more creative and imaginative than the composer, because they have a wider and more nuanced range of tools of interpretation, including the ability to recognize that all works of art need not present events in chronological order: some works might contain flashbacks or one character telling a story to another within the story, or an alternating between different narrators from different perspectives. Perhaps the music is accidentally more satisfying and meaningful when analyzed using this more complex critical toolbox. When one considers the existence of all of the aesthetic tools that an artist can and might use -- including irony, sarcasm, etc. -- one cannot conclude that any given interpretation is blatantly wrong. One would have to hear others' reasons for their interpretations. They might be placing a lot of significance on something within an artwork that you didn't even notice but which they think is the artwork's most vital aspect. And, as I've pointed in previous discussions, even Rand's novels can be interpreted to have meanings quite different from (if not the opposite of) what she intended. If one considers Howard Roark's ethical lapses, one can come to a much different meaning of The Fountainhead than those who overlooked, ignored or denied his ethical lapses. Different people place different levels of importance on different aspects of a work of art. J

Or one could save oneself $575 dollars by making one's own lenses out of "tungsten to daylight" filter gel sheets: http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/leeligelpatt.html J

Similarly, would anyone dispute that there is such a thing as a wrong interpretation of abstract visuals? For example if I said that his image looks "sprightly": Or this one "reserved," "grim" or "funereal": J

I did not admit to lying, since I did not lie. I admitted that I was mistaken to have overstated my case, and I immediately withdrew my mistaken claim and corrected it. And yes, that is indeed "how it works" -- the rational, virtuous approach to realizing that one has made a mistake is to admit to the error and to correct it. Will you do the same? Since you have no evidence that Rand held the belief that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable, will you admit that you've overstated your position? That's false. I made up nothing. I simply overstated my case. I've seen no evidence that Rand believed that Objectivism holds that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable, and, in fact, Rand's own writings, and those of the NBI which she endorsed, very strongly suggest that she held the opposite view -- that "privacy lies" are not morally acceptable. You, that's who. You're still inventing reasons to express your rage, and to smear me as a liar. When I take the virtuous action of admitting to a mistake and correcting it, you attempt to spin it as an admission of a lie, and, therefore to use it as an excuse to discontinue the discussion (which is rather convenient in light of the fact that you still haven't offered any evidence to support your position on "privacy lies"). I did not admit to lying. Anyway, I think that it's pretty clear that the real reason that you're trying to back out of the conversation is that you have no evidence to support your assertion that Objectivism holds that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable. If you had such evidence, you would have presented it instead of blustering and bluffing and attempting to smear me as a liar. May I make a suggestion? I think that you should try to focus on the substance of conversations, and on proving your positions, rather than on attempting to show that those with whom you disagree are liars and intellectually dishonest and unworthy and beneath you. You seem to be primarily focused on trying to smear and discredit me rather than address the ideas that I've put forward. That tactic never works. In everything that you wrote in your post above, you once again did everything but answer the substantive challenge that is facing you -- that of providing evidence that Rand held the position that "privacy lies" are morally acceptable. Your post contains no quotes from Rand or any other type of proof that Objectivism -- actual Objectivism -- takes the position that you claim it does. The fact remains: I have directly challenged you, a few times now, to support your assertion with evidence. You've not done so. Instead you've dodged and weaved and resorted to distractions and personal attacks. I think that says a lot about your position. J

I don't think that the above represents Objectivism. In fact, I think that Rand would be very strongly opposed to it, and rightfully so. Read her own comments on topics such as honesty, inegrity, appeasement and moral cowardice. They do not mesh with the above comments. This notion of morally acceptable "privacy lies" appears to be a position that Rand never held or advocated, and that certain other Objectivists began to promote as being a part of Objectivism only after her death. J

I just noticed a newly reblogged post on honesty: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26164#entry313639 And it reminded me that no one has answered my request, earlier on this thread (in post 234, as well as earlier posts), that Marc K., or anyone else, should provided evidence or quotes from Rand which support Marc's Peikovian assertion that closed-system Objectivism holds that it is moral to lie for the mere sake of protecting one's privacy when one is not being threatened with the initiation of force. I was hoping that by now such evidence would have been provided, or the assertion withdrawn, since without evidence the assertion must be treated as arbitrary (as "a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort," and "a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality"). J

I've seen the Bernstein lectures in the past, and I should watch them again, but, despite all of the value that they offer, Bernstein concludes, if I recall correctly, that we have no way of knowing if our interpretations of works of music and the emotions that they evoke in us are the meanings and emotions that their composers intended or felt when creating it. That is, unless we ask the composers, or if they left behind detailed descriptions of their intended meanings. And in most cases, we can't ask them, and they left behind no such descriptions. And most composers wouldn't want to answer such questions because they didn't follow anything resembling Rand's theory of literature when creating music. J

A dozen years ago, I would have thought it to be been beneath what I would have expected from an Objectivist. I just wanted to point out that, in the context of this discussion, no answers to your challenge are the same as wrong answers. Anyway, I'm going to try the same experiment with architecture and dance, and perhaps several other art forms, including realistic figurative paintings, poems and short stories. But with a twist. I've got a fun little mischievous idea. J

I think that's a correct statement of Nicky's position. He seems to believe that any emotion that he experiences while listening to music is the referent, even if no one else experiences the same emotion. I would suspect that Nicky would also take the standard student-of-Objectivism position that the emotions evoked in him while listening to a piece of music are the correct ones, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, including the composer. If the composer claims to have intended to express something other than what Nicky experienced, then the composer must necessarily be either a bad composer, delusional, unaware of his true sense of life and unintentionally revealing it through Nicky's interpretations, or evil. Or some combination of all of the above. The operating "principal" and "reason" at work here appears to be that certain people do not experience a "general association with thought or emotion" in certain works of art, or in certain entire categories of art, and they arbitrarily declare that, therefore, no one else can either, or that anyone who claims to be making such associations is psychological deficient and/or evil. The distinguishing attribute and fundamental essential appears to be that certain people cannot believe, and will not believe, that others can have knowledge and aesthetic sensitivities/experiences that they lack. They refuse to believe that others can experience certain abstract art forms as being as meaningful and emotionally fulfilling as Rand believed the abstract art forms of music, architecture and dance to be. J

The problem is that metaphorical content is open to different interpretations. "Angela was fire; she was flame," could be taken to have any number of meanings, good and/or bad. The first of the five was me quoting myself describing the effects and meanings of two abstract paintings. The second and third quotes are Rand's descriptions, from The Fountainhead, of specific works of Roark's architecture. Certain people have expressed incredulity and ridicule at my identifying human traits in abstract forms, yet they seem to believe that Rand's doing exactly the same thing is perfectly reasonable, natural, and not deserving of incredulity or ridicule. That quote that you like is from Kandinsky (I like it too, and think that it's very objective in its approach). The Objectivish artist Michael Newberry made some of the same observations (without knowing that Kandinsky had made them previously) in an essay on spatial depth, and Newberry even took the idea a little further in recognizing the importance that context plays in the approach and retreat of colors (that blue, for example, only recedes against the normal natural environment of a blue sky, but not against a different colored background). Kant made the same point. From Guyer's Kant: Quote J

As is true with music, you haven't shown that dance or figure skating qualify as art according to Objectivism's requirements. You have not shown that subjects and "artists' meanings" can be identified in the movements of the person in the video. Also, architecture has not been proven to be an art form by Objectivist criteria. Not only have Objectivists not succeeded in reality in attempting to identify subjects and artists's meaning it architecture while not having access to outside considerations, but there's also the additional problem that Rand stated that architecture "does not re-create reality," and it therefore does not meet her definition of art, which is a "re-creation of reality." Additionally, the challenge contained in this post and the failed responses demonstrate that realist still life paintings don't qualify as art, since Objectivists were unable to identify subjects and meanings in them. It turns out that very little qualifies as art according to Objectivism's criteria when they are tested in reality J

It's not how proof works. See, the idea isn't to assert something without proof and then claim that the assertion is true unless others disprove it. If that were how proof worked, you could assert that invisible magic fairies exist, and everyone would have to accept the statement as representing reality and being true until the time that someone could disprove the existence of invisible magic fairies. The onus -- the burden of proof -- is on the person asserting a claim. "Music is an art form according to Objectivism because it complies with the Objectivist criteria of presenting intelligible subjects and communicating its creators' meanings," is such an assertion. It is not true by default. It is not true in the absence of proof. It is not true simply because it is asserted to be true. J

Nicky, by "extrinsic associations or hints," strictlylogical simply meant what Rand meant when talking about not relying on "outside considerations" when attempting to identify meaning in works of art. He and Rand mean that a work of art itself must provide the meaning, and that one's ability to identify its meaning must not depend on information that is not contained in the work, i.e., information that is outside, external, extrinsic, extraneous, independent, peripheral, alien, separate, etc. Understand? His use of the word extrinsic wasn't an act of advocating intrinsicism. J

The onus isn't on anyone to disprove any of your claims. That's not how it works. J

I have the reverse view. It's not that Rand didn't explain music well enough to fit her theory, but that she didn't openly, objectively and scientifically investigate the nature of all of the art forms before attempting to make them fit the theory that she had developed for literature. She appears to have begun with the desired outcome that all of the various art forms should be as objective as literature, rather than being open to recognizing the reality that certain art forms are much more abstract, contain a higher degree of subjectivity, do not "re-create reality" by her standards for literature, and, by their very nature, they are much more open to different (or multiple) possible meanings and interpretations. What is true of literature and drama's clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms. It's just not an objective approach to the field of aesthetics to require literature-like intelligibility and communication in all of the art forms as Rand did. So, music doesn't need more of an explanation. Rather, Rand's theory needs to be revised to more objectively identify the nature of art based on all of the art forms rather than just literature. The following statements about finding meaning in various art forms all take exactly the same approach of associating abstract attributes with human qualities, actions, personalities, virtues, etc., yet apparently, for some unidentified reason, we're supposed to believe that some of these are vicious attacks on man's proper method of cognition, where others are heroically romantic? Can you tell which is which? "The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward. The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child." "The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' " "Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down." "Generally speaking, warmth and cold in a color means an approach respectively to yellow or to blue. This distinction is, so to speak, on one basis, the color having a constant fundamental appeal, but assuming a more material or non-material quality. The movement is a horizontal one, the warm colors approaching the spectator, the cold ones retreating from him...Yellow and blue have another movement which affects the first antithesis -- an ex- and concentric movement. If two circles are drawn and painted respectively yellow and blue, brief concentration will reveal in the yellow a spreading movement out from the center, and a noticeable approach to the spectator. The blue, on the other hand, moves in upon itself, like a snail retreating into its shell, and draws away from the spectator...The first movement of yellow, that of approach to the spectator (which can be increased by the intensification of the yellow), and also the second movement, that of over-spreading the boundaries, have a material parallel in the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction...Yellow, if steadily gazed at in any geometric form, has a disturbing influence, and reveals in the color an insistent, aggressive character (it is worth noting that the sour-tasting lemon and the shrill-singing canary are both yellow)...Blue is the typical heavenly color. The ultimate feeling it creates is one of rest. When it sinks almost to black, it echoes a grief that is hardly human. When it rises toward white, a movement little suited to it, its appeal to men grows weaker and more distant." "For me, the secondary re-creation level ('representation') does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities...[a melody] is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects...Consider instead the popular song 'My Heart Stood Still.' It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics." J

It's not a sense of life that must be described, but an abstract meaning. The Objectivist position is that a sense of life "is not a criterion of esthetic judgment." Participants in your challenge may want to remember the Objectivist criteria of esthetic judgment: "In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..." Unfortunately, you've already tainted the science of the experiment by naming the piece of music and its composer. Those are "outside" sources of information, and therefore you have no way of controlling for participants doing online research and discovering the composer's intentions by means other than solely "the evidence contained in the work." J

On this thread, I've already commented, twice, on Rand's (and her followers') bald assertions that music "communicates" intelligible subjects and meanings. You haven't addressed the substance of my comments. Here they are again: People often imagine that they're identifying a composer's subject and meaning in a work of music when they're actually unknowingly doing nothing but relying on "outside considerations" -- titles, verbal descriptions, etc. But in reality, when they are tested with music that they've never heard before, and when they are denied all access to such outside information, they fail. No, that's not my position. I've never said that anyone is "physically not equipped" to understand anything. It's a mental issue, not a physical issue. It is a cognitive bias in which unknowledgeable individuals believe that everyone else necessarily must share their personal intellectual or aesthetic limitations. And it's not only an issue of people imposing the own personal limitations on others in regard to abstract visual compositions. In this post on the thread that I linked to ealier I gave the example of an Objectivist denying my ability to identify perspective errors in a realistic painting. Her denial, and her accusation that I was just rationalizing "some explanation" that I had "come up with" to "justify an opinion" was based on nothing but the fact that she didn't have the knowledge required to see the perspective errors, and therefore she apparently believed that anyone who claimed to see them was full of shit and just talking gibberish (to borrow the terms that you used in your last post to me). As I've said repeatedly, when tested in reality, works of music "mean" different things to different Objectivists. When I've tested Objectivists without allowing them access to "outside considerations," they've very rarely been capable of even attempting to identify a subject and meaning, or of offering anything but a vague claim of having experienced some sort of unidentifiable emotion, but on the very rare occasions when they have offered something resembling a coherent description of what they interpreted the music to mean, they've differ wildly from each other and none of them have succeeded in identifying the composers' actual subject and meaning. And then they accused their fellow Objectivists who disagree with their interpretations of being wrong. They always seem to assume their own infallibility, and it never seems to occur to them that haven't attempted to verify whether or not meaning has actually been communicated versus that they've merely had a subjective emotional response to stimuli and that no one else had the same response. So, again, the onus of proof is on you. Your, and Rand's, bald assertion that music "communicates" "intelligible" subjects and meanings must be backed up with evidence. You must prove that people identify composers' subjects and meanings without having any access to "outside considerations," and that they're not just "full of shit, and either copying each other's gibberish, or just openly admitting that the [music] 'means' different things to different [listeners]." Objectivism stresses the importance of proving one's assertions. Show me the proof. J

The Objectivist position is: "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art." Music does not present intelligible subjects. Therefore music is not a "lesser art form" by Objectivist criteria, but, instead, it is not an art form at all. J