In Defence of Ayn Rand #2-1 Art, Criteria, and Objectivism

[Frettsy]

@PaulMcKeever What is art? vs What is GOOD art? watch?v=BeBmTiEWOcQ

[crossingtheswamp1972]

The funny part is that most Rand followers are just as dogmatic as christians. They constantly argue among themselves as to what Rand really means in certain instances. How about this: How about you use the mind Rand speaks of and use it to create your own life philosophy instead of copying someone else's.

[yammyspeed13]

@crossingtheswamp1972 It's impossible to make up good philosophy. 

[biggsy182]

FFS, read some Wittgenstein. There are quite a few words that have no fixed definition, this in no way makes them "meaningless". Define "Game", or "God", or "Existence", in any kind of essential way. Oh, that's right, "game=game", how insipid.

[Ril74]

That fruit analogy was the most intelligent comment about art I've ever heard. Categorizing objects as you find them in nature and categorizing genres of art are certainly the same thing. Impressionist = apple. Thank you for pointing out that it can't be a banana. Thank god (or capital since I guess he doesn't exits) that philosophy is now meaningless now that objectivism has revealed it's brilliance to us. Why is this shit academically shunned again?

[grailmastah]

Mr. McKeever, I've been pleased to listen to your very clear and forthright comments on several different topics. I have one concept which I hope you will clarify. This involves personal choice and perhaps a subjective code for art or even mating partner. Though I may be attracted to many different people or paintings or symphonies, what is the nature of the preference I have for one over another? Mahler's 8th symphony is incredible, but why do I choose Beethoven's 9th?

[Entropy56]

3:40 That woman in the other car is staring at you.

[Juxtys]

She was thinking you are talking with yourself, probably :D

[mattshats]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that apples and bananas are naturally a particular way. So called art is not naturally any one way or the other. You say that, "It's utterly meaningless to have a word that represents nothing in particular." And I won't argue that statement, but art doesn't represent anything in particular. Any distinction between art and non-art is created by humans, and humans differ.

[FpInternational]

Humans differ, but the facts of reality do not.

[mattshats]

Putting aside my disbelief in a truly objective reality.. The 'facts' about what is considered art are human concoctions. Art isn't like an apple where we can dissect it and smell it, feel its texture, taste its juices, watch it grow, etc. Art doesn't represent anything in the natural world. But I suppose neither of us will change our minds on this subject.

[FpInternational]

As soon as you deny the existence of reality, discussion of facts becomes ridiculous.

[mattshats]

I don't necessarily deny reality, although I won't say it's an entirely unfair accusation. I feel that our understanding of what is real is only tenuous and, even then, it is the mere opinion of human beings operating with limited knowledge of a tiny point in the universe and that, even then, that knowledge is filtered through our fragile brains. I think about things like the potential of other organisms to see in more dimensions, etc. (Cont.)

[mattshats]

Steven Pinker - a fellow Canadian - discusses this at length in "How the Mind Works" and, to quote one particular passage, "When the visual areas of the brain are damaged, for example, the visual world is not simply blurred or riddled with holes. Selected aspects of visual experience are removed while others are left intact... (Cont.)

[mattshats]

Some patients see a complete world but pay attention only to half of it. They eat food from the right side of the plate, shave only the right cheek, and draw a clock with twelve digits squished into the right half. Other patients lose their sensation of color, but they do not see the world as an arty black-and-white movie. Surfaces look grimy and rat-colored to them, killing their appetite and their libido. (Cont.)

[mattshats]

Still others can see objects change their positions but cannot see them move - a syndrome that a philosopher once tried to convince me was logically impossible!"

[bzine62]

Agreed. To add to that there are aspects of the physical world humans cannot perceive without special equipment (infrared light, xrays). I can *see* an apple but how can I tell unaided visually how much heat it's giving off? One can argue that our senses allow us to read the special equipment later, but the point is at *any given point of time* we do not possess complete knowledge of an object's physical attributes.

[dreadrocksean]

The fact that YOU may not know EVERYTHING about reality does not negate that it exists. And exists objectively.

[mattshats]

You could do an experiment, try to explain the phenomenon being observed, and get reliable and repeatable results that others can see. To me that's pretty decent illustration of what I'd call a practical idea of an objective reality. But how could you refute the claim that you're just a brain in a vat and what you experience isn't real? I'm not a radical solipsist and I give science credibility because I personally feel like I benefit from it's attempts at understanding the world.

[mattshats]

What amuses me about Objectivists, one of the things anyway, is that they're so dogmatically certain of "the truth."

[SurrealEdifice]

What amuses me about people who put that word in quotations, one of the things anyway, is that they're so dogmatically certain of "the truth."

Sucks to be pigeonholed doesn't it? If your example is aimed at some 17 year old who already knows everything, then fine. "The truth" to me is understanding what we are all guilty of in little ways. Every time you get angry because a wealthy person doesn't just give you want you want because they have more than you do, that's what the truth is.

[mattshats]

It may seem frivolous to suppose, with no real evidence to suggest it, that we could be experiencing some false reality. I liken it to the question of the existence of a god. I doubt there is a god, I don't really see any evidence to suggest there is one, but there could be one. So practically I doubt it, but at the same time I don't feel like going around and claiming I have absolute certain and objective knowledge that there isn't. Which is what Objectivists do. They're full of themselves.

[dreadrocksean]

I do not have the time to explain the philosophy to you. There are books for that and forums. I invite you to gain data. This is not meant to be derogatory.

But your post has stirred me to reply.

ONE IS NEVER CALLED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

You said; "I doubt there is a god, I don't really see any evidence to suggest there is one, but there could be one."

There could be a purple shoejrfu living in ur house right this minute and it always senses your presense accurately and evades your observation...

[dreadrocksean]

Because you cannot prove that the purple shoejrfu exists should not place the undue burden on you to prove its non existence. Otherwise anyone could postulate anything rendering everyone busy searching for proof.

This is why we only acknowledge what is proven or what provides substantial evidence of its existence to require further search for proof.

This is why you don't believe in God and it is a waste of time disproving the undefined.

"I don't believe in God" presupposes that God exists.

[mattshats]

I agree with you that it would be absurd to have to prove something doesn't exist. I don't feel that's what my argument entails though. Practically speaking, I can doubt objective reality, the purple shoejrfu, or god exists but also concede the possibility they do. I just see this as the natural extension if one is to be ontologically honest. If I only say that what I believe to be true is tenuous and could be completely wrong then I can't ever be completely wrong can I?

[mattshats]

"Certitude belongs exclusively to those who only own one encyclopedia."

- Robert Anton Wilson

Of course, I am full of horse shit.

[mattshats]

"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here."

- Richard Feynman

[SurrealEdifice]

No. "I don't believe in God" Acknowledges the general concept provided to you. Someone who had never met another person, and was only allowed to read material intentionally devoid of religion would be an atheist by default. He wouldn't have an opinion on something he's never been introduced to, he wouldn't even understand what there is to believe or not believe it. I'm an atheist because I think the idea of god is silly, and asking me to prove that it doesn't exist is even sillier.

[mattshats]

Wikipedia search "Argument from ignorance"

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

[mattshats]

You accused me of pigeonholing as if it wasn't a fair comment, but I think it's fair to call objectivists dogmatic. Why? They adhere to a a system of principles or tenents. See: Definition of "dogma"

And why "the truth"? Because Ayn Rand has professed that her dogma is objectively true.

[mattshats]

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

- Einstein.

Not that quotes from authority mean anything.

[realityfiend12]

I don't know what idiot gave you a thumbs down, they clearly are not well skilled in the realms of logic.

[cassyvetas]

So called "objective" opinions are generally better recieved in the "classical arts" rather than popular arts. These days, you can be lynched for stating objective opinions about say...Beatles, Led Zepplin, etc. Seems nowadays that any objective opinion is highly unfavorable.

[aaron0883]

I am a classical musician, and I have had this art debate a million times. I often run into the problem for the deifinition of art. Since the art world tends to be dominated by subjectivist view points I always let them define art for me (which tends to be .. art is everything). This makes it so our premise is set before the conversation takes place and I can move on. cont ...

[aaron0883]

I do the same thing with other topics. With selfishness, for example, people think of the conotations and the actions of theft and so on ... so I always make sure to define selfishness before I go straight out and make declaritive statements. Since words are just representations of concepts we need to make sure that what we are saying are relaying the concepts that need to be relayed. cont...

[aaron0883]

If someone wants to say ... art is everything ... I try not to argue. Maybe that is not the literal definition ... but that is the concept that he chooses to assign the word. Yet the other person should understand that you may differ on what concept the word art represents. Anyway ... I think that was partly what you were trying to say.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements. Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual,ie) that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate perceptual awareness. Art fulfils this need: by means of a selective recreation, it concretizes man's fundamental view of himself and existence...

[AynRandOeuvre]

"It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important." (ArtAndCognition:TheRomanticMa­nifesto\AynRand)

[bzine62]

Amongst the many problems with the definition, it doesn't have any functional validity. The definition does not help one understand what your local newspaper, the Encyclopedia Britanica, your local bookstore, university, art school, gallery or The Metropolitan Museum mean when they say "art". Does Bronzino's "Allegory" selectively *recreate* reality or reconfigure elements drawn from it? If primary colors and right angles can be *abstracted* from reality, does that mean that Mondrian is "art"?

[Luke12000]

I love standards and catigorization, I will do a video response clarifying my position.