brianleepainter
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by brianleepainter
-
-
You may find this previous thread on the topic of "private property and freedom of speech" helpful:Phelps at the Funeral
If the funeral is held on private property, Phelps and his legion can carry on with their agenda outside the private property,
on public grounds, acting in accordance with both private property and freedom of speech.
-
What do you mean by a socially objective value which lowers the standards of what to achieve? Pop in general is just a different style of music that some people may or may not like. In regards to Gaga, you could say she even raised the standard demanded of musicians in general at least in regard to music distribution and demonstrating intelligence.
I do not see what thought provoking or wholesome lyrics can be gathered through this style of music such as the one that Lady Gaga is labeled under. Strip her costumes off and remove the visuals, take it for what it is intended for, audio, and what demonstration of intelligence
is there to aspire to? I wonder what aspiring mucisians feel when they look for her acheivement. I think she is a place holder for what could be.
Not unlike walking into an esteemed gallery to find the walls adorned with abstraction, canvas that are taking up valuable space for the paintings that could have been. The abstractions would not be up there if there were not a customer base to buy them. The good paintings would be up there
only if there were customers to buy them. A socially objective value is what determines the market price.
-
Something IS valuable by definition if people are buying it, but I think what you mean to say people buying something does not mean it is an objective value. My point in writing the OP was to point out what is required to make money in all cases except when money is acquired through force. Lady Gaga is a producer of values, but the question is if those values produced end up being more destructive to your own life.
Firstly, I do not care for the product of Lady Gaga, even though she is productive. When I listen to her music come on the radio I do
not feel a sense of joy or happiness in her art.
I think Lady Gaga has earned her wealth by producing music which is of a socially objective value. One which lowers the standards of what
to achieve and what potential is possible for aspiring artists. The work of great musicians is of a more philosophically objective value
than the works of some contemporary pop music, even though the socially objective value shows differently by examining what art sells and
to whom.
-
I had the unfortunate experience of having read one of Tolle's books back in highschool, "The Power of Now".
Like ReasonAlone had stated, Tolle is against the ego of man.
If you are curious to see how anti-reason "The Power of Now" reads then I suggest checking out this previous
threadPain Body Energy Field? in which DavidOdden analyzes a passage from the book and shows just why you should dismiss Tolle's nonsense.
-
Can you think of any examples of art that you would consider buying because it is art, but you know that the creator supports ideas explicitly against ideas you support? Otherwise, this is purely an abstract discussion without any referent. Really unless you know the artist gives monetary support to evil organizations, you shouldn't concern yourself with how moral the artist is. If you value some piece of art at the price it's being sold, you should buy it, because chances are the money will only be spent on producing art like that in the future.
Eiuol, thank you for calling for referents that tie down any floating abstractions that I may be trying to suspend above reality.
I can think of and show examples of art which I find so very beautiful yet the artist which created it holds explicit views that are radically
different than my own. I would certainly still purchase the paintings that the artist(s) creates, these wonderfully beautiful products
of his mind, because they are of value to me and I also value productivity that yields beauty. So, I would want to aid in the monetary
gains of the artist and hope that they continue to produce.
I was having irrational ideas and misintegrating thoughts I had about compartmentalization.
-
Thanks for all the insightful responses on this subject.
I do like to think that a work of art should be treated like any other product, and traded for equal value between men.
Yes, why would an artist's morality come into question when the object of trade is a piece of artwork? Agreed.
Of course, this all presupposes that you have no former knowledge of the artists morality and the greater context.
What if this artist was an altruist who commonly preached the word of mystics, of God, and the greater good of the community.
Not only that, but advocating and even voting for issues that you are radically against.
Are you considered NOT immoral for purchasing a product from a man whose ideology are radically different from yours, while this
trade will result in monetary gain to this artist all the while having full knowledge of what you are doing?
Sometimes I find it difficult to discern the difference between product and creator where in the purchasing of something beautiful
will aid in the not-so-beautiful.
Maybe I'm not integrating ideas correctly, but as for an example I would never create a painting depicting a place of worship
in the hopes of bringing it to light, and omitting the negative. I would just omit it by not even choosing it as a subject matter.
Likewise, I would never create a portrait of a self-proclaimed mystic or altruist. Not only do I not want to show that it is important,
but I DON'T want to selfishly be known for ever bringing that to light. I've seen artists that I admire that seem to indiscriminately create
a portrait of an individual from any sector of life, be it an industrial titan or a figure head of some altruistic movement. I don't
understand why they don't discern the difference.
Perhaps this is seen most explicit in the musical arts, and more specifically still in those songs with lyrics where in you can
actually hear the sense of life direct from the artist themselves. If you hear degrading music that belittles human life then I'd
be surprised to see you purchase the album while ultimately supporting the artist's pursuits. But what of the painter, can you hear
their voice? No, they just skip a step and allow you to hear the idea in paint.
My question stems from something greater still that I can't quite get a hold of just yet. It feels like an intangible, like a fog,
that you can see sometimes but even through introspection I don't want to think it is true. To me, if feels like profits for an artist
are dependent on the morality of his customers.
-
My question deals with judging an artwork, be it a musical composure, an oil painting, or a literary novel,etc. I think that
you don't need a biography stapled to the back of the canvas in order to enjoy the painting. In so, not choosing whether
to be an evader, not taking in all the information provided and being guilty of context dropping, just enjoying the painting for
what it is, divorced from the artist, or not choosing to take in all the facts of reality and being able to enjoy the work of art in full context, knowing that you support both the artist(without which there would be no products) and the product of a man's mind; the painting.
Now, here is where the title of the thread merges with the statement; you can look at an architectural watercolor painting created
by Hilter, having been painted during his youth, unaware of the artist that created it, and enjoy it. At this time you can enjoy it
for what it is. Maybe it can be life affirming to an architectural student, or for a business man who walks the city streets that are depicted
in this medium. This is fine and all until you gain a wider body of knowledge and discover the artist who created it. Now when you
view the painting a rush of concretes should come to mind including the artist, Hitler, the one who created this and massacred
thousands.
When I look at a concrete, in this case a painting, I'm sometimes reminded of a time in place, of similarities that I can link to it.
I introspect and think of the emotions that I feel, and consequently what I value that is represented in a painting. This is why a painting
can be an affirmation of life for myself.
That being said, I would NOT purchase and choose to hang a painting by Hitler in my home, or by artists that I knew had killed others.
(Even though his paintings were created before the atrocities had begun). I think it would be immoral to do so. I think it would be a
sanction of evil, in place of that of the good.
Since an artwork is in a relationship between you, the perceiver, and the concrete itself, and this relationship entails all memories associated with it as a full experience, I don't think you can ignore and evade facts about the creator while reflecting on a work of art, and ultimately
gaining a life-affirming value from it.
Is this an appropriate and objective way to judge an artwork in relationship to the viewer/purchaser of Hitler's watercolors?
An artwork should stand alone for what it is, after all that is what it is intended to be, objectively.
Viewing a painting is encompassed in a full experience, which includes not only the environment around it(lighting,distractions,etc.)
but also any memories and rush of concretes that come to mind when viewing it. Therefore, any prior knowledge you have of the painting
and the artist will affect your experience of viewing the painting. Not of perceiving it mind you, but of reflecting on it and gaining
a life-affirming value.
Perhaps it was moral to purchase Hitlers watercolors when he was in his youth, before the horrors occurred, and immoral to purchase them now?
Moral to purchase them without knowledge of the artist's history, but immoral if you have knowledge of the full context?
I can see it it moral using a tool that was invented by a horrible man, in that the tool aids and brings usefulness to your everyday life.
But what of having a non-utilitarian product, one which the sole purpose of is to uplift man's soul that was created by a man such as Hitler?
-
Hi threesixty,
I think you are on right when you say that some people who call themselves catholic are not aware of what Christianity when practiced
consistently calls for. Perhaps they have not analyzed what Christianity, when looked at objectively really means, and have not taken a
philosophy to replace religion to guide their lives. It is important to remember that many people who are Christian are still productive
and nice people, which looks like you already understand.
So it doesn't make sense to leave catholic church completely only because i do not agree with their philosophy.
This statement is very strong, becuase I think it is precisely when someone does not agree with a philosophy
that one then leaves it, or in this case the catholic church.
I'd like to know what a burial means to you. What would a burial's purpose serve for you and your family? What does it represent?
-
Feltini, there is only one truth. "subjective" truth is not in accordance with reality, objectively.
When I speak of truth, the word truth presupposes that it is objective. Make sense?
-
Hey Draken12,
I agree with JASKN's response in that an ambition and work ethic are of most importance.
If I may take it a bit further, I would say that a passion and motivation for what you value
in your career will certainly help or may even be necessary to pursue a certain career path.
I think it is very interesting how passion and drive feed each other and grow stronger with
your already made value judgments. This: Passion and Drive
I also think self-discipline is another quality to take into consideration when choosing a career
based off of your interest: Discipline
-
Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you?
If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim.
zSorenson, the pragmatic judge acted in favor of upholding individual rights against the votes of the majority. The minority, the one that is in align with the constitution have their
rights being infringed on. Acting in favor of freedom, even in this pragmatic whim worshiping way is one step closer to eliminating the over-legislating government and bringing it back
to their one purpose:to protect and uphold individual rights. Every step closer to this sets the context for the next consistent step to be taken. You don't want the environment to be ripe
for a flamboyant dictator to cash in and take over do you?
-
I would say that while "Conservatism" is in many ways antithetical to Objectivism, Objectivists ought to really be more 'conservative' than 'liberal'.
I think remaining radical is perfectly fine, after all in matters of being objectively right can you really be too radical? No.
"Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . ."
The Objectivist Newsletter
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the votes of a great many people, defying democracy. Isn't this implying the upholding of individual rights
over the "collective" votes whom in effect say that might makes right and that with enough votes we can vote away anything that we please? What if universal
health care was denied due to championing and upholding the right to life. What if the Arizona law was repealed and freedom was upheld?
My point is that while I wouldn't support Proposition 8, I cannot support this ruling, nor the Arizona ruling, unless and until the reason lies with an institutional respect for individual and property/economic rights within the judiciary.I think the Judge acting in this way is a step in the right direction.What is the difference between a group vote that votes away rights and a government that sweeps a bill into legislation. In the end if individual rights are not upheld we all lose.
-
Brianlee, I (and probably most people) agree with you on things like gansta rap, etc. However, instead of being "disgusted," might it not be better to be grateful that we live in a country where artists are able to produce whatever they want, just as the audience has a right NOT to listen or watch. Would you rather be in Weimar Germany, cold-war Russia, China, N. Korea, etc. where government goons and censors determine and approve each and every piece of appropriate art.
If you think about, you might feel better the next time you alphabetize some stupid heavy metal and rap "artist." As long as they are allowed to exist, so are the artist that give you pleasure! Ain'T that great!
Yes claire, I might not always agree with the person in question(the gansta "artist" for example) but I will agree that they should be able to produce their product.
Perhaps this quote is of use"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Anyways, I tried to cover the issue of free speech by ending my post with "Remember that to try and legislate morality will ultimately prevent beauty, but most importantly it would infringe on individual rights."
-
I had first wanted to address your ideas on "talent", and now I'd like to talk about morality.
One of the great things about capitalism is that every individual, in this case artists(both of the visual and musical arts), have the
choice to try and pursue their area of skill and make a profit in their chosen field. There will artists that produce objectively good work
that are then able to gain wealth as well as "artists" that make objectively horrid work that are then able to gain wealth due to the
bankrupt morality of individuals that sanction the artist's work,and ultimately the artist himself.
Do I love to see the achievement of great artists? I sure do! Do I like to see mediocrity being enshrined and lowering the standards of
the arts? Fuck no. I see the sanction of shit on a daily basis, but more importantly and unequaled is the sight of achievement that I do see.
If I may give an example: I work at a retail store that sells a few degrading, anti-life, gangster themed cd's. There is a market for music
that is of this nature, so it sells. One of my duties at Best Buy is to alphabetize these cd's, and I do feel disgusted every time I look
at the products, and I certainly don't enjoy seeing them sell as opposed to other works of music, but I make sure to remind myself that
these disgusting musicians don't matter.
I regularly view works of art at galleries, and I find it disgusting to see "abstract paintings" that try to render floating abstractions
to be classified as art, and on display for customers to purchase. To me, these "abstract paintings" are just placeholders, wall space
waiting for the good stuff to be represented.
Anyways, remember that to try and legislate morality will ultimately prevent beauty, but most importantly it would infringe on individual rights.
-
In our society rap stars and football players are valued, they get paid vast sums of money. Why is this right when it is sheer luck that they have the talent to do those things? I'm sure many work hard at it but there is no doubt natural talent as well. Why should people be rewarded for something they have not earned i.e. their natural talent for a sport, music, acting etc. Even those who do work hard at an activity may well have been bought up in a household which values hard work and thus they are also benefiting from sheer brute luck. Why is this fair?
"Would you still say yes in the case of painters and scientists? If someone studies physics enough can they be as good as Einstein or if they practice enough can they be up there with van Gogh? If so, whay do you say that? Is there more to your argument then optimism in man?"
Hobhouse22, innate talent does not exist. It is very deterministic to think that some individuals are borne with innate abilities, and also too, I don't suggest that you ever try to compliment a skilled individual by commenting on how they are blessed and or born talented. It is a direct insult to the skilled artisan, sports player,etc. By saying that they are able to achieve high skill through innate, inborn talent you are undercutting and undermining all the hard work that the individual undertook to arrive at their current skill level. Remember, people are born with their slate unwritten.
Individuals of great skill are self-made, NOT born.
-
It is basically the Cosmological Argument with a few "twists" or commonly missed observations:
Every effect must have a Cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must be an "Uncaused Cause" which in a sense has the power of existence within itself.
"To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.
Philosophy: Who Needs It “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25.
-
You might find this thread on the topic of "broken" units to be of interest:
-
Hey Ludicious, I think this quote is suiting to your idea on opportunities that are present in challenges:
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
-- Winston Churchill
Anyways, I too see differences between myself and some other people when faced with a present challenge. For
instance, if I may make an example, I have heard from some people that they prefer painting from a photo rather
than engaging in the outdoors to paint directly from the landscape in reality. Perhaps it is more convenient, less tiring,
etc. When I'm faced with a challenge in front of nature I get excited by all the elements that are presented before
me. Eventually I get fatigued and feel like giving up but there is some sort of pleasure I get from taxing my mind
and body during a painting excursion. Something that no other person and create for me, something that only I can
put myself through, a sort of hell I suppose, it is a challenge that if continued will result in great fruits of labor.
Perhaps this is similar to "hitting the wall" for a marathon runner. What can be accomplished if you just put yourself through
"hell" for a bit more steps,actions, etc. For me, there is certainly something to be gained from expecting much from myself.
I imagine great minds such as Edison, Tesla, Turing put themselves through the same thing, perhaps.
-
Yesterday Obama announced that equal access and equal opportunity are American principles. He
then began to imply that these principles should be forced upon others while catering to the best
interests in society as a whole. Anyways, that's what I inferred from this speech.
Obama declared that at the start of the new year of 2012 all private and government business'
must construct their buildings according to new standards that accommodate Americans with
disabilities. When he continues his speech upon his podium he lists all the types of buildings
that will be forced to change to comply to the ADA act while the audience around him just
claps and applaudes with gleeful expressions. It was a pretty malevolent presence.
I was reminded of an episode of Peikoff's podcasts where a principled, disabled individual
asks about the use of handicap parking spots and other services:is it immoral?
Here is the video of Obama's next move:
-
Yes, well, it's a shocking idea. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Think of all the auto accidents this would prevent. As is often said, if it saves just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
I do think that this is an appropriate measure, after all what is in the best interest in the community is of up-most importance, right?
If I may make an integration on the subject of saving lives while operating machinery, I had heard that an oil-rig had a deadly
explosion, so I think it is necessary to ban all oil-rigging. ALso, too, baning the flying of private planes is an appropriate
action to help prevent terrorism. Think of the lives that could be saved!
-
Didn't Rand say something to the effect of until everything is privatized as it should be, we still have to live in this country and deal with the way things are? There is nothing I can effectively do to privatize roads, as much as I think it would be a good idea. In the meantime, I pay taxes and tolls to the government, and in return I expect there to be laws that aim to prevent me from being run over by some asshole on a cell phone, just as I expect there to be laws that aim to prevent me from being robbed at gunpoint. I think it's the same principle.
Under government control there is not much of a choice concerning whether to use the roads during your daily activities or not.
In the meantime there is a tragedy of the commons, yes.
My response to your previous post was partly caused to reading that you are for the legislation of anti- multi-tasking while operating
automobiles. Seeing how you are for legislation of this, I had assumed that you are also for government owned roads.
As far as being run over by an individual using a cell phone, well, I don't try to confuse potentiality for actuality.
-
I would be all in favor of making it illegal to do anything else with your hands while you are driving. You shouldn't be eating or drinking while you are driving.
I'm assuming that you are speaking of private road owners making that decision, and not a law enacted by group vote? It would be terrible for a vote to lower the
standards for everyone. Anyways, I drink/eat and drive all the time. I'm able to do so because my mind is focused on not only driving but also on other tasks such
as eating fast food, talking on my phone, etc. There is a key difference between concentrating and focusing, and in order to multi-task I focus.
If a ban is going to be placed on multi-tasking while driving an automobile on government roads, why stop there? Consistency should be continued to include
the banning of all machinery that inherently require multi-tasking while on government owned property.
-
Minarchist, I assume that you support the "Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act", which
was created largely in part to help stem the tide of the Followers of Phelps?
-
After reading your friends question I see that he has already set up a context
for you to simply show him that animals do not have rights. Also, you could explain
to him as to why all the other animals do not have rights where as Man, the rational animal,
does have one fundamental right; the right to his own life.
"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”
(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58."
Your friend writes about a"right to life" as not being natural, but we don't posses instinct to survive in the wild
as chimps do:
"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it."
From Galt's Speech
Abortion
in Ethics
Posted
Myrtok, I think it is of great importance to understand that it is only after birth, out of the mother, that the entity is then an individual with
individual rights; a right to life. I think the primary reason why a fetus does not have a right to life is because the fetus is NOT an individual
with as I had stated before, a right to life.
I highly recommend this article on abortion, written by Leonard Peikoff: Abortion Rights are Pro Life