Was just wondering why aesthetics is part of the Objectivist philosophy and why it has anything to do with philosophy in general. Different people find different things aesthetically appealing…
Aesthetics, such as art or culture, is crucial to the survival of man’s mind; the mind is crucial to man’s physical existence. Personally, I find some appeal in certain nihilistic forms of art in their appropriate setting, or dissonant sounds within a musical composition. But consider the effects on a mind that ONLY consumes nihilistic art, loud irritating forms of music, and blood-sport as entertainment. I’ve met such people; they’re not very rational, neither are they very good company in the long run.
Artistic creations are nutrition for the conscience.
1 Like
There are many threads on esthetics already. You can try the search at the top of the site, or the Google search at the bottom, using terms like “aesthetics” or “esthetics.”
Esthetics concerns itself with two issues which are essential to a fully integrated philosophic perspective: metaphysical value judgments and sense of life.
Qua branch of philosophy, esthetics studies the nature of art; its meaning and the role it plays in man’s life. Esthetic principles, however, have application well beyond the evaluation of art works. Properly understood, they can shed enormous light on the way a man experiences himself, and how he sees himself in relation to the universe.
Esthetics represents “the soul of philosophy.” A person could conceivably attain a high level of awareness of Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics, but lacking a clear grasp of its esthetics, he is unlikely to make Objectivism his way of life. Philosophy will seem somewhat distant to him — somewhat removed from his moment-to-moment existence.
Ayn Rand was an artist, and in a sense she had to be. While you can learn a lot from her nonfiction (as well as Peikoff’s OPAR and other works), if you haven’t read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you haven’t yet experienced the full impact of the Objectivist vision. These novels are literary and philosophic powerhouses; they make their ideas real to the reader in a way no treatise or series of lectures ever could.
2 Likes
Among other things, esthetics display abstractions as concretes, which is a way to present their applications to reality.
why it has anything to do with philosophy in general.
Read the Romantic Manifesto.
The philosophy of Objectivism began with Rand’s aesthetic views and responses. Prior to consciously working out her philosophy, she had an aesthetic view of existence of mankind as capable, heroic, etc., and later she based her adult philosophy on that view.
J
It’s only part of the philosophy to the extent philosophy is the study of “everything”, or basically fundamentals. Aesthetics is no different from science or ethics in that it is a different science which requires is a specific application. Philosophy just underpins everything since it covers the broadest abstractions. From there you move to specifics which is where the sciences, politics, or aesthetics come in.
As for Objectivism and aesthetics, Rand was an artist’s so naturally she made critical thoughts on it and applied her fundamental to this specific enterprise, much like she did to ethics and politics. If you look around here you’ll see a lively debate on the subject and how to apply those principles.
On 1/16/2014 at 11:59 PM, KevinD said:
Esthetic principles, however, have application well beyond the evaluation of art works. Properly understood, they can shed enormous light on the way a man experiences himself, and how he sees himself in relation to the universe.
Esthetics represents “the soul of philosophy.” A person could conceivably attain a high level of awareness of Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics, but lacking a clear grasp of its esthetics, he is unlikely to make Objectivism his way of life. Philosophy will seem somewhat distant to him — somewhat removed from his moment-to-moment existence.
Ayn Rand was an artist, and in a sense she had to be.
I agree completely with this. Aesthetics is a much more fundamental branch of philosophy than it normally gets credit for. I think hierarchically it should follow directly from metaphysics, and actually has implications in epistemology and ethics.
In the same sense that everyone has to be a philosopher to some extent, since man by nature must be guided by a comprehensive view of life, do you think in a sense everyone has to be an artist to some extent, since aesthetic principles also perform a necessary function in the guidance of life (when it comes to metaphysical value judgments and sense of life)?
2 Likes
No, I don’t think everyone needs to be an artist, but I do believe everyone should have at lest some art in their lives in whichever form it is in - some people prefer music or literature or painting or sculpture - or if like me all of it.
On 12/28/2016 at 10:26 AM, RomanticRealism said:
No, I don’t think everyone needs to be an artist
I disagree, I think they do.
Not as a career path, obviously, but I’m yet to meet someone who decided to try to create art, and regretted it. I don’t think it would be possible: creating art fills a hole in us that nothing else could fill.
On 12/27/2016 at 11:57 PM, epistemologue said:
In the same sense that everyone has to be a philosopher to some extent, since man by nature must be guided by a comprehensive view of life, do you think in a sense everyone has to be an artist to some extent, since aesthetic principles also perform a necessary function in the guidance of life (when it comes to metaphysical value judgments and sense of life)?
I would say that, to the extent that one intends to live an interesting and fulfilling life, he should develop within himself the soul of an artist.
Indulge greedily in works of art, yes — but more broadly, cultivate your personal values (what you like, enjoy, appreciate, etc.), and curate your life in such a way so that your daily existence reflects and embodies that which matters most to you.
2 Likes
On 1/17/2014 at 2:56 AM, Repairman said:
Aesthetics, such as art or culture, is crucial to the survival of man’s mind; the mind is crucial to man’s physical existence. Personally, I find some appeal in certain nihilistic forms of art in their appropriate setting, or dissonant sounds within a musical composition. But consider the effects on a mind that ONLY consumes nihilistic art, loud irritating forms of music, and blood-sport as entertainment. I’ve met such people; they’re not very rational, neither are they very good company in the long run.
Artistic creations are nutrition for the conscience.
I also similar find appeal in all kinds of art that is not romanticist. According to the Romanticist theory, art’s purpose is to embody abstractions that consciousness can sum up as a guide. So then what would be the function of ‘nihilistic’ art? And if that’s the only art you enjoy and you wanted to change some underlying premises let’s say - what are you supposed to do then? refuse to enjoy any art because it and thus repress yourself?
On 1/20/2014 at 7:57 PM, Jonathan13 said:
The philosophy of Objectivism began with Rand’s aesthetic views and responses. Prior to consciously working out her philosophy, she had an aesthetic view of existence of mankind as capable, heroic, etc., and later she based her adult philosophy on that view.
J
If those were her subconscious views, does that mean they were formed non-volitionally? I have wondered after reading the ‘sense of life’ essay how much of our philosophy is actually just formed in childhood by chance.
On 12/28/2016 at 7:57 AM, epistemologue said:
I agree completely with this. Aesthetics is a much more fundamental branch of philosophy than it normally gets credit for. I think hierarchically it should follow directly from metaphysics, and actually has implications in epistemology and ethics.
In the same sense that everyone has to be a philosopher to some extent, since man by nature must be guided by a comprehensive view of life, do you think in a sense everyone has to be an artist to some extent, since aesthetic principles also perform a necessary function in the guidance of life (when it comes to metaphysical value judgments and sense of life)?
This is a really interesting question.
There is this quote from ‘the psycho-epistemology of art’ which I was trying to understand and I think it might be relevant:
“When we come to normative abstractions — to the task of defining moral principles and projecting what man ought to be — the psycho-epistemological process required is still harder. The task demands years of study — and the results are almost impossible to communicate without the assistance of art. An exhaustive philosophical treatise defining moral values, with a long list of virtues to be practiced, will not do it; it will not convey what an ideal man would be like and how he would act: no mind can deal with so immense a sum of abstractions. When I say “deal with” I mean retranslate all the abstractions into the perceptual concretes for which they stand — i.e., reconnect them to reality — and hold it all in the focus of one’s conscious awareness. There is no way to integrate such a sum without projecting an actual human figure — an integrated concretization that illuminates the theory and makes it intelligible.”
From what I understand she is saying that embodying an abstraction demands years of study? So basically then, to practice art according to her view, is a full-time job.
On 12/31/2016 at 3:48 PM, Nicky said:
I disagree, I think they do.
Not as a career path, obviously, but I’m yet to meet someone who decided to try to create art, and regretted it. I don’t think it would be possible: creating art fills a hole in us that nothing else could fill.
What hole do you think it fills that is not normally being filled?
4 hours ago, Jonathan Weissberg said:
If those were her subconscious views, does that mean they were formed non-volitionally? I have wondered after reading the ‘sense of life’ essay how much of our philosophy is actually just formed in childhood by chance.
Yes. And relates to your other thread. By happenstance, when very young, a sense of life - “subconscious, preconceptual” - was not under one’s control. The metaphysical benevolent/malevolent view of the universe was formed mostly then, I think. One may and can adjust a malevolent premise to a greater or lesser degree, later on, through conscious, conceptual thought.
4 hours ago, Jonathan Weissberg said:
I also similar find appeal in all kinds of art that is not romanticist. According to the Romanticist theory, art’s purpose is to embody abstractions that consciousness can sum up as a guide. So then what would be the function of ‘nihilistic’ art? And if that’s the only art you enjoy and you wanted to change some underlying premises let’s say - what are you supposed to do then? refuse to enjoy any art because it and thus repress yourself?
I don’t think it’s necessary to repress yourself in the pursuit of anything rational. If there is a “function of nihilistic” art, I’m not entirely sure I can answer that; I can only speak for myself. Nihilism and/or realism in bold artistic statements of human imperfect gives me a sense of connection with the outraged and frustrated others, as so many of us feel in moments of alienation. I find it’s something that can help me to explore or sink to the depths of my own darker moods with music or other “culture for misfits” that reflects some sort of macabre aesthetic, or noir realism. Dark moods are a part of life. Dark moods won’t guide your life, unless you allow them. Rationality can be inspired through art as well, however, art that inspires rationality and heroism is rare in these desperate times, so you have to seek it. My observations have been that some people only consume the sort of culture that inspires darkness and meaninglessness. They immerse themselves in it. It’s always a matter of choice. Rising from out of the depth of darkness, to live again, is very rational.
1 Like
12 hours ago, Repairman said:
I don’t think it’s necessary to repress yourself in the pursuit of anything rational. If there is a “function of nihilistic” art, I’m not entirely sure I can answer that; I can only speak for myself. Nihilism and/or realism in bold artistic statements of human imperfect gives me a sense of connection with the outraged and frustrated others, as so many of us feel in moments of alienation. I find it’s something that can help me to explore or sink to the depths of my own darker moods with music or other “culture for misfits” that reflects some sort of macabre aesthetic, or noir realism. Dark moods are a part of life. Dark moods won’t guide your life, unless you allow them. Rationality can be inspired through art as well, however, art that inspires rationality and heroism is rare in these desperate times, so you have to seek it. My observations have been that some people only consume the sort of culture that inspires darkness and meaninglessness. They immerse themselves in it. It’s always a matter of choice. Rising from out of the depth of darkness, to live again, is very rational.
Although not quite a “sense of connection” with those, I agree it makes for an insight into their cynicism or nihilism or “ressentiment” and quite valuable for one’s understanding of general trends, moral and artistic. My opinion is one needs to look at the dark side in art too. One emerges stronger and more certain for the experience I think (like one’s intellectual, artistic “immune system” is enhanced from the exposure). Naturalism, that broad category, holds merits, often technical and stylistic, and at least as a foil to romantic realism. Best put, maybe, that one comes to finely discern the light from the darkness, while noting/appreciating the shades between them.
The art content and presentation by extremely capable artists or authors will usually hold several enjoyable take-aways which, if nothing else, heighten the capability to *see* (and conceptualize).
E.g. Any well-crafted novel but the most boring, naturalist, ones always has a prominent and often absorbing individual character, typifying individualism, but - he/she may be the doomed-Byronic type, having volition “in regard to consciousness, but not to existence”; or on the other Classical Romantic side, he succeeds in his ambitions but does so without an expressed reason: possessing volition “with regard to existence, but not to consciousness”. Then rarely, one finds the authors and their characters who combine both elements, in greatly refreshing romanticism-heroism for one’s spirit. I advise to read and view them all and find out/identify/enjoy for oneself. An art ‘echo chamber’ is needlessly self-constrictive and limiting.
2 Likes
Great post, whYNOT.
On 12/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, whYNOT said:
My opinion is one needs to look at the dark side in art too. One emerges stronger and more certain for the experience I think (like one’s intellectual, artistic “immune system” is enhanced from the exposure).
Stronger in what sense? more certain of what?
On 12/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, whYNOT said:
The art content and presentation by extremely capable artists or authors will usually hold several enjoyable take-aways which, if nothing else, heighten the capability to *see* (and conceptualize).
What do you mean when you say this? Do you mean conceptualize better the different kinds of literature and identifying their elements elsewhere? Or do you mean to say literally reading a good author helps one in better forming all kinds of concepts?
I’ve heard reading good literature more ‘perceptive’. The idea is certainly motivating, but I don’t think I’ve experienced that (much). Do you think this means simply relating things you see in actual people to characters in good novels?
On 12/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, whYNOT said:
E.g. Any well-crafted novel but the most boring, naturalist, ones always has a prominent and often absorbing individual character, typifying individualism, but - he/she may be the doomed-Byronic type, having volition “in regard to consciousness, but not to existence”;
Jack London’s Martin Eden
On 12/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, whYNOT said:
or on the other Classical Romantic side, he succeeds in his ambitions but does so without an expressed reason: possessing volition “with regard to existence, but not to consciousness”.
Makes me think of ‘Vikings’, although that’s a TV series.
On 12/22/2020 at 4:17 PM, whYNOT said:
Then rarely, one finds the authors and their characters who combine both elements, in greatly refreshing romanticism-heroism for one’s spirit. I advise to read and view them all and find out/identify/enjoy for oneself. An art ‘echo chamber’ is needlessly self-constrictive and limiting.
The trouble is reading all often involves trying to read inaccessibly difficult books (for me). And then you’re simply relying on someone who is claiming that “it’s a classic” and worth the work. All these posts on my part are me trying to find more about why reading the classics more broadly may be good for me.
On 12/22/2020 at 4:52 AM, Repairman said:
I don’t think it’s necessary to repress yourself in the pursuit of anything rational. If there is a “function of nihilistic” art, I’m not entirely sure I can answer that; I can only speak for myself. Nihilism and/or realism in bold artistic statements of human imperfect gives me a sense of connection with the outraged and frustrated others, as so many of us feel in moments of alienation. I find it’s something that can help me to explore or sink to the depths of my own darker moods with music or other “culture for misfits” that reflects some sort of macabre aesthetic, or noir realism. Dark moods are a part of life. Dark moods won’t guide your life, unless you allow them. Rationality can be inspired through art as well, however, art that inspires rationality and heroism is rare in these desperate times, so you have to seek it. My observations have been that some people only consume the sort of culture that inspires darkness and meaninglessness. They immerse themselves in it. It’s always a matter of choice. Rising from out of the depth of darkness, to live again, is very rational.
Would you be open to expanding more on what it means to “explore or sink to the depths of my own darker moods?”
Do you mean as a tool for introspecting? or as a kind of soothing balm to help you stay with your feeling rather than escape it?