Mammon Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 http://blog.ilanamercer.com/?p=589 I've never even heard of Rachmaninoff and I think Spider-Man 3 was an appaling abuse of my senses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 http://blog.ilanamercer.com/?p=589 I've never even heard of Rachmaninoff and I think Spider-Man 3 was an appaling abuse of my senses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Rachmaninoff Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 I think shes largely confused, but I do like that shes pointed out the " clunkiness " of many American cities. Architecture has gone down the tubes in many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benpercent Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 Why would Objectivist admire Spiderman 3 as an Objectivist movie? One of its primary themes is moral grayness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) I, too, think she might be a little confused. I posted this to the comments section: Objectivism is a movement in its infancy, and the people at the vanguard were friends of Rand at one time or another. It doesn’t surprise me that many of these people have similar tastes. With more time, this picture will change. People who were around for the start of the movement are beginning to die off. There is a whole generation of Rand fans that weren’t even born before she died — the whole ‘Randroid’ topic is becoming less relevant by the day. Seriously, for how long is the 'cult of rand' going to be an issue? I was born less than a year before she died. I have friends my age and younger who have children. There is going to come a time when people will feel silly using 'Rand cult' to make Objectivists objects of ridicule - soon (if not already), most Objectivists will have never had the opportunity to be 'brainwashed' by Rand. Edited December 15, 2007 by FeatherFall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 I, too, think she might be a little confused. I posted this to the comments section: Seriously, for how long is the 'cult of rand' going to be an issue? I was born less than a year before she died. I have friends my age and younger who have children. There is going to come a time when people will feel silly using 'Rand cult' to make Objectivists objects of ridicule - soon (if not already), most Objectivists will have never had the opportunity to be 'brainwashed' by Rand. I don't know about that...the cult of Jeebus has been doing quite well for 2000+ years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 I don't know about that...the cult of Jeebus has been doing quite well for 2000+ years. Right, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of her mannerisms and aesthetic preferences. While I only have a few short video interviews as material, I do have quite a bit of written evidence regarding what she liked to read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 I find it amusing that she attacks Objectivists for being cultural philistines when the entirety of the American population lacks any kind of decent esthetic judgment. Esthetics is the most derivative branch of philosophy and is barely developed. We are still figuring out, bit by bit, what are the rational criteria you use to judge a work of art, especially in the realm of music. Notice how she relies exclusively on the two most difficult areas of esthetic judgment, too: buildings and music. Does she mention our cult-like following of Vermeer and Victor Hugo? Is Badger Clark the final word in Objectivist poetry? No. Huh, I wonder why that is? Is it perhaps that esthetic criteria in those areas are a lot better established and people, in general, have more comprehensive tastes? About two thirds of the Objectivists I know are techies, not esthetes. Before they read Ayn Rand's books, they probably couldn't name a single classical composer. They hear about Rachmaninoff from her, they get curious, find a CD, realize that they like it, and add it to their list of favorites. No one says that we cultishly worship our friends when we listen to their book, movie, and music recommendations. But we must be trying to become Ayn Rand look-alikes when we listen to *her* recommendations in the same field. Personally, I didn't go through this because I already had a little bit of exposure to classical music, so I can name, like, three other composers for comparison. Rachmaninoff bores me, the only Romantic composer I really like is Camille Saint-Saens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 In her appreciation of music, Ayn Rand was undeniably very limited. She took mainly to Rachmaninoff. So what? Her imperfections are not the point. Yes, Rachmaninoff is my favorite composer too. I must be a "monkey." It's not even conceivable that there are objective reasons that certain people are attracted to particular music. One "giant" is the same as the next... Who has the patience to read that crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 I find it amusing that she attacks Objectivists for being cultural philistines when the entirety of the American population lacks any kind of decent esthetic judgment. Yes, I'll second that. While I'm sure there are at least a few people out there to fit the author's stereotype, there's something not quite right about pointing out some little foible of a few isolated neophytes who probably don't deserve the label "Objectivist" when we are living in a cultural wasteland where what passes for entertainment is figurative... and often literal... crap. Get some perspective. To ignore the omni-directional sludge-pump that is mainstream culture and instead target Objectivists really does smack of Hating The Good or whatever you want to call it. If you want to vouch for something, vouch for it. If you think people are overlooking some song or movie or music, then say so - make your case. Don't just post an attack on "Objectivists." I mean, what is this author, a Kelleyite or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) About two thirds of the Objectivists I know are techies, not esthetes. Before they read Ayn Rand's books, they probably couldn't name a single classical composer. They hear about Rachmaninoff from her, they get curious, find a CD, realize that they like it, and add it to their list of favorites. No one says that we cultishly worship our friends when we listen to their book, movie, and music recommendations. But we must be trying to become Ayn Rand look-alikes when we listen to *her* recommendations in the same field. Even if every Objectivist were an esthete, and they all hated Rachmaninoff before reading Ayn Rand, and were all convinced that Rachmaninoff was the best composer after reading Rand, that would not prove that they were monkeys or clones but only that they were open to rational persuasion. Edited December 22, 2007 by Bold Standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) Even if every Objectivist were an esthete, and they all hated Rachmaninoff before reading Ayn Rand, and were all convinced that Rachmaninoff was the best composer after reading Rand, that would not prove that they were monkeys or clones but only that they were open to rational persuasion. One should come to like or dislike music by listening to the music, and not by reading someone's opinion of the music. The expert opinion of a musician or composer might reveal some structural aspect of the music to the non-musician, but aesthetic judgment still lies with the listener. Was Ayn Rand a musician or a composer? Why should her opinions concerning music have any more weight than yours or mine? Bob Kolker Edited December 22, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Why should her opinions concerning music have any more weight than yours or mine? Has anyone here said they do? Don't you ever look up the recommendations of your friends? Personally, I'm always on the lookout for new things to try, so if someone says "I really like this TV show" or "You have to see this movie" or "I like this band", I usually will at least take a gander. It's not that we respect their opinions *more* than our own (I won't KEEP listening to music just because my friends like it and I don't), but that we respect their opinions enough to have a look at what they're interested in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Has anyone here said they do? Don't you ever look up the recommendations of your friends? Personally, I'm always on the lookout for new things to try, so if someone says "I really like this TV show" or "You have to see this movie" or "I like this band", I usually will at least take a gander. It's not that we respect their opinions *more* than our own (I won't KEEP listening to music just because my friends like it and I don't), but that we respect their opinions enough to have a look at what they're interested in. Read the post by Bold Standard to which I was replying. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) One should come to like or dislike music by listening to the music, and not by reading someone's opinion of the music. The expert opinion of a musician or composer might reveal some structural aspect of the music to the non-musician, but aesthetic judgment still lies with the listener. Was Ayn Rand a musician or a composer? Why should her opinions concerning music have any more weight than yours or mine? Bob Kolker Nobody forms an opinion by simply listening to music. You must also analyze it and your experience of hearing it by some implicit or explicit criteria in order to form an opinion. Of course, every judgment lies with the person doing the judging, but that doesn't imply that there are no objective criteria for judging anything or that one person's judgment on any topic is as valid as another's or that judgments cannot be incorrect. Ayn Rand was not a musician or composer, but she was a philosopher. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, and is always derivative of an implicit or explicit metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Anyone who has studied The Romantic Manifesto knows it was Ayn Rand's position that definitive, objective criteria for judging music are impossible at the present time, because more scientific research must be done on the physiology and psychology of how musical sounds effect human beings. But she still wrote intelligently about the feelings that certain music, such as Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto, evoked in her, that other people can compare to their own experience of hearing the music, and then possibly be enlightened to a new way of thinking about it. I am a musician, and I think that, if the relevant scientific data were available, a (rational, objective) philosopher's opinions would have *more* weight than a musician's or composer's, because the philosopher deals with the more fundamental, abstract concepts that underly the art, and the musician merely takes those ideas and applies them to his particular craft and talent. Edited December 23, 2007 by Bold Standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Nobody forms an opinion by simply listening to music. You must also analyze it and your experience of hearing it by some implicit or explicit criteria in order to form an opinion. Of course, every judgment lies with the person doing the judging, but that doesn't imply that there are no objective criteria for judging anything or that one person's judgment on any topic is as valid as another's or that judgments cannot be incorrect. You can objectify and rationalize the subjective? Hey man, that's a neat trick! I hope you don't mind if I have my doubts. I come to like or dislike music purely by how it sounds to me. But what do I know? I am just another barbarian. A simple criterion: Do I feel like humming it? Another criterion: Do I feel like moving to it? Stuff like that. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 (edited) You can objectify and rationalize the subjective? I don't know what you mean by that.. [edit: and I certainly didn't *say* that.] Define your terms. Specifically, how do you define "subjective"? Are all judgments "subjective"? I come to like or dislike music purely by how it sounds to me. [...] A simple criterion: Do I feel like humming it? Another criterion: Do I feel like moving to it? Stuff like that. "Stuff like that" is not "purely how it sounds" to you. There is a distinction between hearing the music and the way hearing the music effects you. And do your feelings arise in a vacuum? Or are there underlying causes that relate to your nature and the nature of the music? Edited December 24, 2007 by Bold Standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 I don't know what you mean by that.. [edit: and I certainly didn't *say* that.] Define your terms. Specifically, how do you define "subjective"? Are all judgments "subjective"? "Stuff like that" is not "purely how it sounds" to you. There is a distinction between hearing the music and the way hearing the music effects you. And do your feelings arise in a vacuum? Or are there underlying causes that relate to your nature and the nature of the music? Sure there are causes. Which only -I- know and are private to -me-. What is what makes them subjective. That which is not visible or perceptible to anyone but the subject is subjective. My thoughts and feelings are -mine- and no one else can get access to them (if I tell you my thoughts you only have access to the sound waves I am making or the sight of writing I do). Thus they are subjective. Subjective is that which is of or pertains to the subject exclusively. Do you claim to know what someone else is thinking or feeling (I am not talking about their external behaviors which is public)? If so you have a dandy talent --- mental telepathy. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Do you claim to know what someone else is thinking or feeling (I am not talking about their external behaviors which is public)? If so you have a dandy talent --- mental telepathy.Here's the thing though: a magician telling you what card you hold might appear to be telepathic, but he is not. An author cannot say for sure what type of reaction every particular reader will have. However, does that mean a good author cannot write a particular scene that invokes a particular mood (happiness, sadness, pride, ... whatever) in a certain target audience? A good author can do so. To some extent people can even be taught to do so: for instance, people can learn to write good advertising copy. People can be taught to be good salesmen, or to bully others into fearing them, or to con others into believing them. How do they perform these miracles if not by telepathy? Obviously, by understanding what they are doing. They grasp the process, and the human reaction to it, in some type of conceptual terms, and then they apply those terms to future writing. Can it be done for music, like it can be done for writing, speaking or acting? I do not know. However, the objection that any such attempt would need to use telepathy is a straw men. Underlying that objection is the assumption that the human mind is causeless or (at least) completely inscrutable when it comes to reactions to music, even though it is not so in it's reactions to writing, speech and acting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Can it be done for music, like it can be done for writing, speaking or acting? I do not know. However, the objection that any such attempt would need to use telepathy is a straw men. Underlying that objection is the assumption that the human mind is causeless or (at least) completely inscrutable when it comes to reactions to music, even though it is not so in it's reactions to writing, speech and acting. I make a definite point of identifying the observables. It comes from a desire to trace what one knows to what one perceives. I got that piece of advices from a Russian born novelist. As to minds, I would not know. I do not have a mind. However I have a brain that functions sufficiently well to give me a 140 score on the W.B. IQ test. I have had several high tech scans made of my body, particularly my head. I have looked and looked and looked at the outputs even with a high power magnifier and by golly, I do not see any sign of a mind in my head. Not a trace. So on empirical grounds, I believe in the existence of my mind to the extent that I believe in ghosts, spirits, souls and gods. I have never found a trace of a mind in anyone else's body either. All I can observe of others (while they are alive) is their external behavior, some physiological scans and traces, various chemical tests of their precious bodily fluids. That is all I can perceive. My perceptions bound my sure knowledge. Everything else is either inference, guess, hunch or second hand stories I get from other people. I truly envy you folks who know more than you perceive. That is a gift. I don't have it. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 I make a definite point of identifying the observables. It comes from a desire to trace what one knows to what one perceives. I got that piece of advices from a Russian born novelist. As to minds, I would not know. I do not have a mind. However I have a brain that functions sufficiently well to give me a 140 score on the W.B. IQ test. I have had several high tech scans made of my body, particularly my head. I have looked and looked and looked at the outputs even with a high power magnifier and by golly, I do not see any sign of a mind in my head. Not a trace. So on empirical grounds, I believe in the existence of my mind to the extent that I believe in ghosts, spirits, souls and gods. Do you observe awareness? Do you have awareness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 I have had several high tech scans made of my body, particularly my head. I have looked and looked and looked at the outputs even with a high power magnifier and by golly, I do not see any sign of a mind in my head. Not a trace. So on empirical grounds, I believe in the existence of my mind to the extent that I believe in ghosts, spirits, souls and gods.I have had several high-tech scans made of my computer, particularly the hard drive. I have looked and looked and looked at the outputs even with a high power magnifier and by golly, I do not see any sign of an operating system on my drive. Not a trace. And yet, the dang thing boots up and lets me play music and post replies to physicalists on the internet. How do you explain that?? I mean, surely, if there were an operating system on my hard drive, it would show up on x-rays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 I have had several high tech scans made of my body, particularly my head. I have looked and looked and looked at the outputs even with a high power magnifier and by golly, I do not see any sign of a mind in my head. Not a trace. I suppose that it is always possible, Bob, that you have simply lost your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 I have a brain that functions sufficiently well to give me a 140 score on the W.B. IQ test. W.B. = Warner Brothers? Que the Looney Toons music. I know this is rude, but Jesus, Bob, you've walked right into these responses. Of course, this... I do not have a mind. ... might explain things. That's all, folks! JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 I do not have a mind. Too easy. Ain't touching it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.