I split previous 3 posts about aesthetics into this thread, since it’s quite a distinct topic from the OP: http://forum.objecti…=0
I think you misunderstand the purpose of this thread. I was comparing the *methodology* of Kant to the *methodology* of Ayn Rand. So it wasn’t about esthetics, it was about how Kant never made a reference to existence when making his arguments, versus the objective approach.
Is it really context or fact dropping in an evaluation of an idea if other facts are apparently irrelevent? Not mentioning a fact doesn’t mean disregarding a fact. It may take a lot more information to conclude that morale matters, or perhaps with more information you’d conclude that morale is irrelevent. Rationalism is about treating concepts apart from reality, where definitions and deduction is all that goes on, not just a wrong premise or wrong conclusion. You haven’t really presented what about the facts you mention being important. I acknowledge that yes, morale can be boosted for some crazy terrorists if a mosque is built, but people get morale from many things. Can objective conclusions about rights even be made when you try to include “morale boosting” as a form of enabling some people to be more likely to violate rights? Giving money to a terrorist group directly leads to making it possible to violate rights, but giving morale doesn’t really enable anything until the group gets funding. I’m not trying to argue just about the mosque, but I hope you see that there may be justification to not mention some facts. That’s not disregarding as much as “okay, sure, it’ll boost morale for some people. And?” A person may have a huge amount of morale, but I don’t think it follows that they’re a threat at that point. People need to act for a threat to be real.
I don’t have to be treating rights in a contextless way to say that something you claim to be relevent I think has no bearing on the case made at all. The problem may have nothing at all to do with methodology as much as it is more information is needed for one of the parties. Knowledge being a sort of spiral makes it so that even rational people have have identical information about a particular event, but have a tremendous difference in knowledge about psychology that can have bearing on conclusions.
No, what is conventionally referred to as Romanticism is exactly what inspired Rand.
You appear to be missing my point that Romantic art inspired Rand, not necessarily the theories behind the Romantic art (or the theories of any other aesthetic movement).
You are technically contradicting yourself here. It cannot be true that “Romanticism is exactly what inspired Rand” if the theories of Romanticism are excluded because appending an -ism to Romantic to form Romanticism implies the reference to a normative ideal, some theory of what it is to be Romantic.
Art objects once created do have objective identities with multiple attributes some of which can be of value and others less so. Rand was inspired by some art that also is classified as examples of Romanticism but it does not follow that it was that theory of Romanticism that inspired Rand rather than the particular elements she later isolated in her own theory she also called Romantic. Peikoff gave a lecture series on the subject of the value of even overall bad art that has redeeming features.
I disagree that a focus on individualism was the only element of Romanticism that Rand approved of. She also loved its drama, emotional impact, scale, conflict, etc. Rand’s love of Romanticism was more emotionally “sense of life” based than explicitly philosophical.
I wonder if it possible to have individualism as a feature of an artwork without there being some degree of drama, scale, conflict, emotional impact, etc. I think not, nor are these rather fundamental generic aspects unique to Romanticism (example: passion plays of the crucifixion of Christ).
You (and/or Rand?) consider Shakespeare to be from the Romantic Period? Weird!
He was an influence that partly defined and created Romanticism through the intermediate mechanism of being popular and republished in Germany. He does not belong to the traditions of the preceding period and is at least a transitional figure.
I understand that Rand was critical of many aspects of the Romantic Movement while admiring and being inspired by the art that it produced.
I agree.
I understand that Rand was critical of many aspects of the Romantic Movement while admiring and being inspired by the art that it produced. The point is that she did not reject the element that Kant brought to Romaticism, but embraced it as her signature style (perhaps unknowingly). Her novels do not present Greek Sublimity, or Shaftesburian Sublimity, or even Burkean Sublimity. They present Kantian Sublimity.
I disagree. One theme of Rand’s work is the smallness of the enemy. Cheryl Taggart was overwhelmed by her sense of the scale of evil at large in the world, but James Taggart is not a terrifying figure. Cheryl was wrong. The reader is equally wrong if he identifies and agrees with Cheryl’s conclusion. The character of John Galt is Rand’s presentation of the ideal and he bears no trace of Kantian sublimity. “A trace of Kantian sublimity” would be if Galt let the scale of what he was trying to do with the strike intimidate him into inaction or hesitation. Galt may inspire Kantian sublimity in James Taggart but I don’t think that supports the point you were trying to make.
There is a case to made for the appearance of Kantian sublimity in The Wizard of Oz, but Ayn Rand did not author that.
So your theory is that a brief, non-detailed outline of Kant’s epistemology in the prologue to his Critique of Judgment is what Rand believed caused modern art, rather than Kant’s formal, detailed presentation of his epistemology elsewhere,
No, but it is the one work where Kant himself tries to move from his epistemology to aesthetics, acknowledging the relation of one to the other as cause and effect. Kant himself did not get his aesthetics fully consistent with his epistemology, that was done by subsequent generations of thinkers and artists. Who among the self-consciously Post Modernist artists of the present day aims at achieving Kantian sublimity?
Are you claiming that Rand or anyone else has identified a “conceptual universal” behind the judgment of beauty? If so, I’d love to hear it.
Philosophically, the Romantic Movement was about instilling *emotions* into people via art, and not the concretization of concepts the way Miss Rand presents the nature of art. There is a brief passage of Haley the concerto composer artist in Galt’s Gulch in AS who makes this point when he says that he wants the listener’s *understanding* and to hell with their emotional reaction per se. So while some artists during the Romantic Movement may well have made some good art (by the standard of concretizing an abstraction) that led to a great emotional reaction, this was not Ayn Rand’s focus in art.Tying this into the methodology discussion of this threat, emotions are not tools of cognition, and so the attempt to classify artwork based on emotional reactions as the basis (ala Kant) is not an objective approach. Even when Miss Rand was writing about music, she pointed out how certain musical phrases (the object in this case) brought about a conceptual grasp (like climbing a mountain, being involved in a difficult struggle, entering a cathedral, etc.) rather than just an emotional reaction.
Added on edit: Besides, emotional reactions are not universal anyhow. The very same fact of reality – even an earthquake or a tornado or some other natural disaster – will not necessarily bring about the emotional reaction of defiance in the face of adversity, since some people have the reaction of the loss and just pack up and move away as apposed to staying and fighting nature. Emotions come about due to one’s value hierarchy, which is open to volitional choice to reason or not to reason about values – and so emotional reactions are not universal, like a reflexive action (tapping on a spot near the knee will cause the leg to jerk).
I asked for proof, not for Peikoff’s groundless opinions.
Are you familiar with this critique of Peikoff’s theories?
No, and I hadn’t been missing out on anything.
On the contrary, he thought of his Critique of Pure Reason as answering David Hume’s skepticism. In particular, he attempted to explain causality in order to justify philosophically the achievements of Newton’s physics. Kant was, in brief, a defender, not an opponent, of the real world.
Which is complete bullshit because the real skepticism that concerned Kant was skepticism about God, and his method was to firewall the scope of reason away from the metaphysics that would consider God. But his method was generalizable, and was generalized by subsequent thinkers, to firewall reason away from everything. It is this criticism of The Ominous Parallels that is groundless.
edit: added
Peikoff’s view of Kant’s ethics is equally mistaken, although it at least makes more sense to think that someone’s moral principles can have practical effect than it does to assume that the key to politics is to be found in recondite theories of epistemology. Peikoff has a good deal to say about Kant’s stress upon duty and “categorical imperatives”; but, oddly enough, he never tells us what the categorical imperative is. It is, unfortunately, easy to understand the reason for this slight omission on Peikoff’s part. Had he quoted the second formulation of the categorical imperative, he would have at once given the lie to his charge that Kant laid the foundation for the Nazi doctrine of blind submission to the omnipotent state. That formulation reads: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
Again this author exhibits complete obliviousness to the issue of method. It does not matter in the slightest what any of Kant categorical imperatives actually said, only that there were things such as categorical imperatives. All assertions of categorical imperatives are equally invalid, but once the habit of mind is adopted of thinking in terms of categorical imperatives and duties it is a much simpler matter to advocate to different imperatives and duties. This is another example of not being able to see the forest because of the obscuring trees in the foreground. It is so exasperating to encounter this self-righteous blindness over and over again.
Knowledge being a sort of spiral makes it so that even rational people have have identical information about a particular event, but have a tremendous difference in knowledge about psychology that can have bearing on conclusions.
OK, I guess it is possible that those supporting the building of the NYC M simply do not understand the tremendous importance of morale during time of war, and the necessity to break the enemy in both matter and spirit – to make them give up the fight by completely obliterating their state apparatus *and* their ideology. For example, neither Germany nor Japan were truly defeated until we smashed them enough that they no longer cared to stand by Nazism or Shintoism any longer. Similarly, in this battle against the Islamic Totalitarians, it is very necessary to smash them completely and totally to the point whereby they give up Islam as a basis for being at war with us. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way we are fighting the war, and so I don’t think we will win on those terms. In fact, every effort is being made to *boost* the morale of Muslims around the world and even in prison camps like Abu Gradwhere we must treat them kindly least the whole world come down on us with moral rebuke. Also, the enemy clearly understands the issue of morale in war time given the fact that we cannot even fly the American flag at our bases in Iraq or Afghanistan – after we conquered them! The destruction of the psychological state and the will to fight of the enemy is crucially important to break their spirits so that they no longer fight against us ever again.
“the proponents of the NYC M do not take into account that the Islamic Totalitarians do want to destroy us (and all of the rational based civilization across the world) and that the erection of the NYC M would be a boost to their morale,”
Does/would it boost the morale of totalitarians? If so, by how much? Does it actually have the potential to change things enough, due to purported morale boost, that totalitarians may do anything differently? Would boosting the morale of actual rights violators be enough to nullify the rights of others? Even if the morale boost is evidently unintentional? Would this really be the optimum response for dealing with actual rights violators? These things are disputed by people on the other side of the mosque issue. Nobody I’ve seen on either side denies that totalitarians want to destroy us and nobody has failed to have the “morale boost” argument come in front of them and across their mind. The above questions though come up in dispute over the morale boost argument. The “morale boost” thing isn’t something everybody on the other side is ignoring, it is something that they are not in agreement on. I’ve also seen disputed who/what we can be said to be in what type of war with. If one is in disagreement about all those kinds of things then all that is left against these mosque people is some ideological overlap with the actual rights violators (I say “some” because not everybody who says they support Islam is playing up violence-encouraging sections of it, unlike the totalitarians who actually are big on that stuff. Plenty of others, hypocritical as it may be, go about their lives basically with an attitude of, “This book is great! It’s perfect! Follow it! … well, except never mind that chapter 8 and it’s whole slaughtering people business.”)
(I say “some” because not everybody who says they support Islam is playing up violence-encouraging sections of it, unlike the totalitarians who actually are big on that stuff. Plenty of others, hypocritical as it may be, go about their lives basically with an attitude of, “This book is great! It’s perfect! Follow it! … well, except never mind that chapter 8 and it’s whole slaughtering people business.”)
I totally agree that there are people like this, who claim to be Muslim, and yet do not follow the edicts of Mohammed the way it was intended to be followed – in a sense, they are using reason as being superior to the teachings of the Koran, just as modern Christians (aside from the Fundamentalists) use reason to guide their lives instead of the Word of God. However, that does not invalidate the claim that Islam means killing the infidel and waging every type of war and stratagem against the non-believers. It would be like someone claiming to be an Objectivist (because they like the novels), and yet do not follow the methodology of objectivity (of going to the facts) when it comes to arguing things like politics; whereby some Conservatives claim they agree with Ayn Rand on capitalism (Gingrich), and then turn around and condemn presidential running mates because they ran businesses and made a profit by being ruthless in the market place (Romney).
I do think there can be legitimate disagreements over the applications of rational principles. Being an Objectivist does not mean that one will agree with every other Objectivist in lock-step fashion; and that is good, since independence is a virtue. However, if it can be shown that you are making arguments that are not based on the facts of reality, then one ought to check one’s premises, re-think it through taking those facts into account, and form a more rational (based on the facts integrated) conclusion.
Thomas,
Although we often disagree on minor issues, I usually appreciate your thoughtful input; but I’m very disappointed with your position on checkingpremises.org. I agree with Diana that you have wildly misinterpreted some of her stated views.
I also find troubling your suggestion that a nation can declare war on an ideology. Such a view makes sense to me at all. Nations declare war on other nations. This distinction is crucially relevant, and the failure to acknowledge this leads to absurd conclusions, like advocating a U.S. military attack against U.S. private property while bypassing the entire judicial process.
I hope you will reconsider. Otherwise, I may have to brand you a Subjectivst Rationalist Minovas Jr. Objectivist for all time!
–Dan Edge
Although we often disagree on minor issues, I usually appreciate your thoughtful input; but I’m very disappointed with your position on checkingpremises.org. I agree with Diana that you have wildly misinterpreted some of her stated views.
I’ll take your position with a grain of salt, considering that when I brought up Diana’s position about eating brainless children on FaceBook you said I was making a mountain out of a molehill.
“However, if it can be shown that you are making arguments that are not based on the facts of reality, then one ought to check one’s premises, re-think it through taking those facts into account, and form a more rational (based on the facts integrated) conclusion.”
Yes, but is that the case in some of these disputes, such as the mosque issue I’ve been using as my example? Has their been a failure to account for something or a consideration of such and then subsequent disagreement about it? In post #127 I mentioned some things there may be disputes about such that the idea of this morale boost thing coming up wouldn’t automatically lead to the conclusions some people have about things like bombing it to the ground and whatnot.
The fact that we are at war with a deadly enemy that follows a kill-the-infidel policy changes the entire context of how (radical) Muslims ought to be treated. I’ve already acknowledged that this does not apply to those Muslims who do not follow that policy, so long as they are peaceful and do not advocate or act on that policy, then I don’t think any harm should come to them. However, the imam who was going to run the NYC Mosque (Cordoba House) was specifically one who advocated kill the infidel and wage very type of war and stratagem against the infidel – all the rest of us – and to let him run the place in a time of war would be giving sanction to the enemy. It would be like letting the right-hand man of Hitler come over and set up camp in the USA during WWII, and during time of war, one cannot permit that to happen.
Regarding due process, there is a different due process during war time versus peace time. The due process during war time is to clearly identify the enemy, target him, and destroy him. There is no “due process” for the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the Taliban) – one finds them and kills them. Period. Now, I don’t think we could outright kill Rauf (the NYC M leader), due to the fact that he wasn’t yet advocating kill-the-infidel on US soil during time of war, but he would have if given half the chance in his mosque. Therefore he cannot be permitted to have a platform in the USA. One cannot permit the ideological proponents of force on the side of the enemy have a stance during war and on one’s own territory.
However, the imam who was going to run the NYC Mosque (Cordoba House) was specifically one who advocated kill the infidel and wage very type of war and stratagem against the infidel… …
When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited. Neither of them actually support eh notion that this imam is advocating the killing of infidels, let alone Americans. I assume you have seen some better evidence, and are not basing your claim on stuff like this. If so, could you post some links or references here, please.
Now, I don’t think we could outright kill Rauf (the NYC M leader), due to the fact that he wasn’t yet advocating kill-the-infidel on US soil during time of war, but he would have if given half the chance in his mosque. Therefore he cannot be permitted to have a platform in the USA. One cannot permit the ideological proponents of force on the side of the enemy have a stance during war and on one’s own territory.
So, your position is that you believe that Rauf is going to be an “eminent” threat to “our” “metaphysical survival,” and, based on these imagined abilities of yours to predict the future, as well as your belief that “we” are “at war” with Islam when in factual reality we are not, you (and Peikoff) have the right to supsend the property rights of Rauf and others associated with the Cordoba project. The funny thing is that you call them the “ideological proponents of force” when you are the one who is hellbent on initiating force, and distorting and tarnishing Objectivism in the process.
J
When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited.
Pamela Geller’s site certainly has such claims as well. Alongside all kinds of loony rants.
60 Minutes did a segment on this, with interviews with her and Rauf (he’s a Sufi, BTW).
http://www.cbsnews.c…ch/?id=6902812n
I gave my opinion here, this is hardly the time and place to rehash it.
Pamela Geller’s site certainly has such claims as well. Alongside all kinds of loony rants.
60 Minutes did a segment on this, with interviews with her and Rauf (he’s a Sufi, BTW).
http://www.cbsnews.c…ch/?id=6902812n
I gave my opinion here, this is hardly the time and place to rehash it.
From the 60 Minutes interview:
Rauf:
“The reason why there’s so much antipathy to our faith is because of the radicals, the suicide bombers. That is not Islam. We reject it.”
“We condemn 9/11.”
J
When I google, the two top links for Rauf and killing infidels are this one from jihadWatch and this one from InfidelsUnited. Neither of them actually support eh notion that this imam is advocating the killing of infidels, let alone Americans. I assume you have seen some better evidence, and are not basing your claim on stuff like this. If so, could you post some links or references here, please.
He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.
If he has a right to advocate my death indirectly through my membership in the class “infidels”, it should be equally within my rights to indirectly advocate the death of Rauf by advocating for the death of all Muslims. Is this correct? Is this what freedom looks like?
Here is a video that explains the (only apparent) contradiction between the existence of peaceful Muslims and the warlike Muslims. It consists of reading from the Koran and making simple observations.
The Three Stages of Jihad
…and, based on these imagined abilities of yours to predict the future…
Speaking of which:
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” - Leviticus 20:27
J
He advocates the Koran. The Koran advocates the killing of infidels. The Koran advocates killing me. By logical implication Rauf advocates killing me. It does not matter if he admits it or denies it the implication is there.
He advocates some of the Koran evidently. Some of it. Hypocritical? Yes. But if people were being completely logically consistent to begin with they wouldn’t be following a faith of any sort.