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

A response to Luke2000's suggestion that defining "art" with criteria is "Ayn Rand Objectivism"

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• art

[Entropy56]

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

[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.

[Frettsy]

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

[yammyspeed13]

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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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."

[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.