Mensch Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Perhaps, but I think for myself. How I feel towards someone is on a case-by-case basis. Yes, and so you should. If you are thinking as a rational person you would arrive at that same conclusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 (edited) But based on what standard in each case? My measurement of what type of a person he is and the potential I see in him. Yes, and so you should. If you are thinking as a rational person you would arrive at that same conclusion Yes, for the most part. But some things I down right disagree with her on, such as "modern" art. I've taken music theory classes and understand rationally the theory behind dissonant sounding music. I don't like all of it, but some of it I really enjoy (ie, Shostakovitch's 1st violin concerto [esp. movements 2 and 4 and the cadenza]). I also like abstract art quite a bit. In fact, when I went to the museums as a kid the abstract art got me the most excited. Based on what Rand has had to say about modern art in Atlas Shrugged (or at least the musical part of it), she apparently reached an unfavorable conclusion about it. But I respectfully disagree with her there. Edited November 15, 2008 by Zedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 My measurement of what type of a person he is and the potential I see in him. By what standard do you measure him? By what standard does he have or not have potential? Potential to do what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 My measurement of what type of a person he is and the potential I see in him. Yes, for the most part. But some things I down right disagree with her on, such as "modern" art. I've taken music theory classes and understand rationally the theory behind dissonant sounding music. I don't like all of it, but some of it I really enjoy (ie, Shostakovitch's 1st violin concerto [esp. movements 2 and 4 and the cadenza]). I also like abstract art quite a bit. In fact, when I went to the museums as a kid the abstract art got me the most excited. Based on what Rand has had to say about modern art in Atlas Shrugged (or at least the musical part of it), she apparently reached an unfavorable conclusion about it. But I respectfully disagree with her there. It seems like you disagree with most of what Objectivism stands for. The kind of art one likes certainly reflects ones values Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 By what standard do you measure him? By what standard does he have or not have potential? Potential to do what? Show me a person and I'll tell you. It seems like you disagree with most of what Objectivism stands for. The kind of art one likes certainly reflects ones values Wow, that's a totally illogical conclusion. Ethics and leisurely enjoyment of art are mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted November 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Show me a person and I'll tell you. Are you saying that your standard changes with each individual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Wow, that's a totally illogical conclusion. Ethics and leisurely enjoyment of art are mutually exclusive. Take a look at my signature, it says it all. I would recommend to you to read some Rand before you continue to embarrass yourself even more. You can try to think on your own, but so far you have not succeeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Are you saying that your standard changes with each individual? No, I'm trying to say it's easier to define by example than trying to explain it abstractly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Take a look at my signature, it says it all. hmm, okay. Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts That's an assertion, not a logical deduction. I would recommend to you to read some Rand before you continue to embarrass yourself even more. You can try to think on your own, but so far you have not succeeded. I don't need to read Rand to understand that the reason why I enjoy certain works of modern art is because I think they're fun and different. So I like weird shapes and bright colors. I enjoy using my imagination and thinking about things beyond the every day world. The thought that you think you can infer my deepest moral values all based on the stimulation of my analytical mind modern art gives me I find amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 hmm, okay. Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts That's an assertion, not a logical deduction. On it's own, it's an assertion. It is part of an argument though. You claim that ethics and art are separate issues. Objectivism does not. Now, if you disagree, you're free to do so, but this is a forum for people who have read, understood and agree with Ayn Rand's ideas - not a place for people to say, 'That is wrong' without even knowing what the hell they're talking about. I don't need to read Rand to understand that the reason why I enjoy certain works of modern art is because I think they're fun and different. So I like weird shapes and bright colors. I enjoy using my imagination and thinking about things beyond the every day world. The thought that you think you can infer my deepest moral values all based on the stimulation of my analytical mind modern art gives me I find amusing. We're not inferring what your moral values are - the point is, you just don't think the two are connected. Objectivism asserts that they are. You can disagree, but just saying, "It ain't so" is not an argument against a philosophical premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 On it's own, it's an assertion. It is part of an argument though. You claim that ethics and art are separate issues. Objectivism does not. Now, if you disagree, you're free to do so I read the aynrandlexicon.com entry for modern art and thought about the development of art theory during the ages. I realized, upon reflecting, it's the influences popular philosophical circles have had on art during the ages which is in fact the connection between ethics and art. But I realized my disagreement was with the implication that the art which I like necessarily reflects my values. I enjoy realistic art just as much as I enjoy abstract, and even minimalist, art. To say my taste in art is a reflection of my values is a direct contradiction in light of the kinds of art I enjoy. Thus, the reason why I enjoy the kind of art that I do isn't a matter of ethics but something different entirely. q.e.d. (I'm not going to discuss this anymore.) but this is a forum for people who have read, understood and agree with Ayn Rand's ideas - not a place for people to say, 'That is wrong' without even knowing what the hell they're talking about. Well, Mensch wanted to "go there" so I answered her questions. We're not inferring what your moral values are - the point is, you just don't think the two are connected. Objectivism asserts that they are. You can disagree, but just saying, "It ain't so" is not an argument against a philosophical premise. I agree and disagree, as I described above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 To say my taste in art is a reflection of my values is a direct contradiction in light of the kinds of art I enjoy. You should understand what Ayn Rand - or most philosophers for that matter - mean when they say there is a connection between this or that, or they say that this is how a man lives. What they mean is that this is the 'ideal' state of man, this is how he should live. Objectivism states that men do not live by faking reality, but that doesn't mean a guy can say, "Hey! I sleep with like, 7 other women besides my wife, and none of them are aware of any of the others!". Similarly, it holds that man is an integrated being and there is no kind of barrier where life stops in his leisure time. It's not like he takes a break from his values. This means that men can compartmentalise different parts of their life, so that they can enjoy pruning bonsai trees on Mondays and barbecuing babies on Sundays. The point is, is that you enjoy leisurely activities because of certain values. You said yourself, you like art because you like the way it allows you to play with your imagination and to laugh at things, or whatever. Now, whether that is a rational value or not put aside, you do accept that there is a 'Why' you enjoy certain things. So it may be that this is just one compartment of your life, separate from a certain core set of values, or it may be that 'imagination' is one of your core values. In either case, you see there is a tie between values and art, it just matters whether you recognise it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 One thing I noticed is, once someone gets into something deep enough, he stops being skeptical. Instead, he begins to assume everything must fit within that frame he made for himself. Objectivism is no exception. You will continue to try to frame me within these preconceived notions and you will always fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 One thing I noticed is, once someone gets into something deep enough, he stops being skeptical. Instead, he begins to assume everything must fit within that frame he made for himself. Objectivism is no exception. You will continue to try to frame me within these preconceived notions and you will always fail. Afew things: 1. So your big idea is that one should remain as shallow as possible, or else he won't be able to stay skeptical? I'd say everyone around here has been pretty skeptical of your conclusions... How do you explain that? 2. What's a preconceived notion and why is it so wrong to have them? Are you advocating erasing one's memory every morning, to avoid all the preconceived notions from the day before? 3. We had a pretty lengthy conversation earlier, so give me an example of a frame (fashioned out of preconceived notions I guess) I made for myself, that I'm fitting everything into. Is it my silly ethical system which bothers you, because it's set in stone, not flexible enough to allow for the full range of human emotions you believe we should base our moral decisions on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I've come to the conclusion, based on a number of observations, that shallow people need to find their depth in how far they can claim to be an antagonist of something. Who they are is based largely on what they're not. They find that the deeper they can get entrenched in arguing against something, the deeper they must be as a person. In their fantasies, they retain not only depth, but also a kind of individuality that comes from not being 'framed with pre-conceived notions', which are like, so totally wrong, because you can't like, label me, man. I'm a person, not like, part of a big theory, you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I've come to the conclusion, based on a number of observations, that shallow people need to find their depth in how far they can claim to be an antagonist of something. Who they are is based largely on what they're not. They find that the deeper they can get entrenched in arguing against something, the deeper they must be as a person. In their fantasies, they retain not only depth, but also a kind of individuality that comes from not being 'framed with pre-conceived notions', which are like, so totally wrong, because you can't like, label me, man. I'm a person, not like, part of a big theory, you know? Yes, and liking blank canvasses and chaotic smears is a reflection of what you just pointed out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) 1. So your big idea is that one should remain as shallow as possible, or else he won't be able to stay skeptical? I'd say everyone around here has been pretty skeptical of your conclusions... How do you explain that? Straw man. 2. What's a preconceived notion and why is it so wrong to have them? Preconceived notion - look those two words up in the dictionary and put them together. Are you advocating erasing one's memory every morning, to avoid all the preconceived notions from the day before? Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong. 3. We had a pretty lengthy conversation earlier, so give me an example of a frame (fashioned out of preconceived notions I guess) I made for myself, that I'm fitting everything into. Is it my silly ethical system which bothers you, because it's set in stone, not flexible enough to allow for the full range of human emotions you believe we should base our moral decisions on? How about your post. The part I underlined - where did that come from? Under what objective basis did you conclude that that is poignant to the discussion? In their fantasies, they retain not only depth, but also a kind of individuality that comes from not being 'framed with pre-conceived notions', which are like, so totally wrong, because you can't like, label me, man. I'm a person, not like, part of a big theory, you know? So that's your analysis of me? Fail. Let's do a fun experiment to see if you're actually right. Here are a few samples I found doing a google search that caught my fancy. They're not my favorites, so perhaps they're not the best representation, so keep that in mind in your analysis. But look at them, and based on them see if you can come up with a rough sketch of what my values are. http://www.auxillary-works.nl/2008/wp-cont...9/freeform1.jpg http://www.greek-island.gr/abstract-art-4.jpg http://www.auxillary-works.nl/2008/wp-cont...bstract0021.jpg http://www.tony-shaw.co.uk/graphic%20desig...set%20Torus.jpg http://www.toffsworld.com/art_artists_pain...sing_greens.jpg http://www.theoceanseries.com/images/artwork/thegoose500.jpg Perhaps I can even find images online of my favorite examples and post them for further analysis. Edited November 20, 2008 by Zedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong. How can you live a rational existence if you do not ever allow yourself to know anything as true, as real, moral, right or known? Your position is made on sand. Using your own fuzzy logic, why should anyone here believe any proposition you propose, counter any argument, or support any objective statement you make? All your words could be false, all your ideals could be changed or the words you use may not even mean anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazariun Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) Let's do a fun experiment to see if you're actually right. Here are a few samples I found doing a google search that caught my fancy. They're not my favorites, so perhaps they're not the best representation, so keep that in mind in your analysis. But look at them, and based on them see if you can come up with a rough sketch of what my values are. http://www.auxillary-works.nl/2008/wp-cont...9/freeform1.jpg http://www.greek-island.gr/abstract-art-4.jpg http://www.auxillary-works.nl/2008/wp-cont...bstract0021.jpg http://www.tony-shaw.co.uk/graphic%20desig...set%20Torus.jpg http://www.toffsworld.com/art_artists_pain...sing_greens.jpg http://www.theoceanseries.com/images/artwork/thegoose500.jpg Perhaps I can even find images online of my favorite examples and post them for further analysis. Speaking as someone who hasn't read Rand's Romantic Manifesto, the impression I get from those images is, "visually interesting, but aesthetically simple". That is, I don't really think it is art, but simply design. Images like that don't make me feel anything in relation to the context of my life, they just seem pleasing to the eye in some cases. At most, they have a shallow aesthetic value to me. Anyway, I think the problem with this disagreement you're having with some of the people here is that somewhere along the line of them asking for more definitive statements from you, you got defensive because you felt they were attacking you. After that point, it seems like a constant back-and-forth of attack and defense, with no one really attempting to exchange anything but snide remarks anymore. In the future, statements like "So that's your analysis of me? Fail." should probably be avoided, if you don't want to immediately make yourself look like a troll. Even the word "fail" used in that manner reeks of 4chan. Edited November 20, 2008 by Lazariun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 My problem with my disagreements is that they can't help but put words in my mouth and totally distorting anything I try to say, and thus no one gets anywhere. For example: How can you live a rational existence if you do not ever allow yourself to know anything as true, as real, moral, right or known? Perhaps if you didn't start off assuming what I meant you may even come to understand anything I've tried to say thus far? Scientists don't take the first bit of data they see and extrapolate the results on their gut reaction and make a big fuss about it. They look at the data, consider it and try to deduce the correct meaning and not their own (skepticism at work). It's so simple, I don't understand why the members of this forum lack that capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong. You had nothing constructive to say, before or after this sentence (the sentence you chose to argue with, the straw man, was actually only a joke; and then I asked for an example of a preconcieved notion, because I doubt you're using the expression correctly, not directions to where I colud find the definition ) , so I'll just ignore all that and answer this one sentence: If everything you know may be wrong (meaning nothing can be 100% right ), what is morality to you? Morality is a code that guides one's actions. If nothing is right, no right action can be taken. Good doesn't exist. We could just be existing in a virtual reality machine, constructed by an alien civilization which is running a test to see what will happen: if that's true, there is no right or wrong, existence doesn't exist, perception is imagination, reality is invisible. If I assume everything I know could be wrong, I am paralized: I have nothing to guide my actions. In fact my best course of action would be to kill myself, because there is a small chance I'll go to heaven. (You certainly cannot tell me not to, because there is no heaven. After all, you could be wrong: maybe there is a heaven, and only people who kill themselves before the age of 30 get to go there.) P.S. Why are you typing at your keyboard? How do you know I'll see your response? Stop doing that, everything you know could be wrong: "You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into............. the Twilight Zone. How do you know I'm not an evil spirit? I'm coming for your soul through the wires, booooooo, booooooooo, hahahahhahahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Perhaps if you didn't start off assuming what I meant you may even come to understand anything I've tried to say thus far? Scientists don't take the first bit of data they see and extrapolate the results on their gut reaction and make a big fuss about it. They look at the data, consider it and try to deduce the correct meaning and not their own (skepticism at work). It's so simple, I don't understand why the members of this forum lack that capacity. In this forum, perhaps more than any other place I've visited on the Web words mean things. So when you say Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong. You are indeed saying that you think that ANYTHING (an⋅y⋅thing    /ˈɛniˌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-ee-thing] Show IPA Pronunciation –pronoun 1. any thing whatever; something, no matter what: Do you have anything for a toothache? –noun 2. a thing of any kind. –adverb 3. in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all: Does it taste anything like chocolate? ) may be WRONG (wrong    /rɔŋ, rɒŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rawng, rong] Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. 2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. 4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club. 5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine. 6. not suitable or appropriate: He always says the wrong thing. 7. (of clothing) that should be worn or kept inward or under: You're wearing the sweater wrong side out. –noun 8. that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth; evil: I committed many wrongs. 9. an injustice: The wrongs they suffered aged them. 10. Law. a. an invasion of another's right, to his damage. b. a tort. –adverb 11. in a wrong manner; not rightly; awry; amiss: You did it wrong again. –verb (used with object) 12. to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; harm. 13. to impute evil to (someone) unjustly; malign. —Idioms 14. get in wrong, Slang. to cause to come into disfavor: We are forever getting in wrong with the people next door. 15. go wrong, a. to go amiss; fail: Everything is going wrong today. b. to pursue an immoral course; become depraved: Bad friends caused him to go wrong. 16. in the wrong, to blame; in error: He knew he was in the wrong but refused to concede the point. ) So perhaps before you start accusing people of putting things into your mouth you should actually try to understand exactly what it is that is coming out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 the impression I get from those images is, "visually interesting, but aesthetically simple". That is, I don't really think it is art, but simply design. Images like that don't make me feel anything in relation to the context of my life, they just seem pleasing to the eye in some cases. At most, they have a shallow aesthetic value to me. My thoughts exactly. I appreciate some geometric art, on the basis of its design, but not on any artistic value. It just means nothing to me beyond, 'Oooh, pretty'. It doesn't make me think, "Oooh, this guy had a respect for reality", because I know how some people - Descartes - can have a great love for geometry and yet completely deny the existence of reality. Look, I'm not saying I can know your values based on whatever art you enjoy. Like I said, there are people who can be perfectly rational in some parts of their life and irrational in others - most people live their life with some degree of compartmentalisation. It's rarely that you meet a fully integrated person. Even an Objectivst trying to integrate their life will still have many compartments to sort out. My point is that there is a link between Art and Metaphysical Values, and that if you like a certain kind of Art, it is because you hold a certain metaphysical viewpoint. You might state that you value you reason, but if you try to seek out every obscure blur of paint, then that tells a different story. Art is like a kind of 'values in action'. There are men who claim that they really love their wives, and spend lots of time convincing themselves that they do, yet they will insult them, ignore them and underneath it all, resent them. Appearances don't always reflect reality, but you hiding from reality doesn't change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong. Straw man. Are you sure about that? Preconceived notion - look those two words up in the dictionary and put them together. Are you sure of that? I think "preconceived notions' mean sausages with creme So that's your analysis of me? Fail. Are you sure about that? I think his analysis is that you are Santa Claus Scientists don't take the first bit of data they see and extrapolate the results on their gut reaction and make a big fuss about it. They Are you sure? ROLL CALL!!!! I say it's banning time. (Oh, and I am sure of that) Edited November 20, 2008 by KevinDW78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedic Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 So anything you know may be wrong = nothing means anything, total free for all existentialist nihilism? Right. You people only think in extremes and have no intention to discuss ideas rationally beyond that narrow frame of mind. I'm out. 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.