Romantic Realism
Randroid Terminator
concerned... not with things as they are, but with things as they
might be and ought to be."
In other words, almost any form of art could be classified as Romantic
Realism, so long as the artist represents it as "the way things might
be and ought to be."
--
Charles Novins
news:kvk0g056kalcumf57...@4ax.com...
> "Romantic Realism," Rand wrote in the intro to The Fountainhead, "is
> concerned... not with things as they are, but with things as they
> might be and ought to be."
>
> In other words, almost any form of art could be classified as Romantic
> Realism, so long as the artist represents it as "the way things might
> be and ought to be."
CHARLES NOVINS:
Mal, I never studied formal logic, but I immediately see all the things
wrong with your statement.
I'll hold off on the translator for a little bit, but why don't you try
telling us what you mean for a change?
malenor
T0xp3c...@comcast.com>...
OMG, you were being... NICE! IT MUST BE A TRAP!
Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
representing any philosophy under the sun.
Charles Novins
news:5851837b.04072...@posting.google.com...
> OMG, you were being... NICE! IT MUST BE A TRAP!
>
> Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
> representing any philosophy under the sun.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Correct. Does she anywhere say that this is the sole property of RR?
Fred Weiss
669...@posting.google.com>...
> Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
> representing any philosophy under the sun.
Yeah, so? Did you think that by that statement AR meant to suggest
that only Objectivists could write Romantic Realism?
But actually some philosophies could not by their nature be consistent
with this view since they advocate determinism, which denies that we
have choice. Which is why as determinism in one form or another became
the predominant philosophical view (eg. from the influence of Marxism,
Freudianism, Behaviorism), naturalism in literature became more and
more dominant and romantic realism faded away.
On only a slightly more subtle level, with the influence of Kant in
particular and therefore the view that we could not know reality as it
really is, what difference does it make what we do since we have no
way of knowing if it bears any relationship to what is true or right.
Throw in the Kantian view that ethics is merely a totally arbitrary
floating abstraction with no connection to reality and you don't
exactly have any basis for human motivation. Not exactly conducive to
a romantic sense of life.
So in actuality it is not in fact conducive to "any philosophy under
the sun".
This is all just more confirmation that Malenoid understands
Objectivism no more now than he ever did which however really isn't
the issue. He has made it amply clear that he doesn't *choose to*
understand it. Since however he Kan't know what it really is no
matter how hard he tries, he probably figures it doesn't matter
anyway. It's easier to make it all up - just the way he thinks
physicists do about the natural world.
Fred Weiss
malenor
016.47...@posting.google.com>...
> malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5851837b.0407230524.36
> 669...@posting.google.com>...
> > Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
> > representing any philosophy under the sun.
>
> Yeah, so? Did you think that by that statement AR meant to suggest
> that only Objectivists could write Romantic Realism?
No, but thanks for the question, Fred. In fact, I meant it to suggest
that Rand's aesthetics are circular. "The way things might be and
ought to be" doesn't necessarily lead to Romantic Realism.
> But actually some philosophies could not by their nature be consistent
> with this view since they advocate determinism, which denies that we
> have choice. Which is why as determinism in one form or another became
> the predominant philosophical view (eg. from the influence of Marxism,
> Freudianism, Behaviorism), naturalism in literature became more and
> more dominant and romantic realism faded away.
Determinism is the way things might be and ought to be.
> On only a slightly more subtle level, with the influence of Kant in
> particular and therefore the view that we could not know reality as it
> really is,
If phenomena are real, then they represent how reality really is. You
are conflating the concepts of "phenomenon" and "appearance."
> what difference does it make what we do since we have no
> way of knowing if it bears any relationship to what is true or right.
> Throw in the Kantian view that ethics is merely a totally arbitrary
> floating abstraction with no connection to reality and you don't
> exactly have any basis for human motivation. Not exactly conducive to
> a romantic sense of life.
The idea of an "interest" is a truly human motivation in that it
derives from the nature of the rational faculty itself. It is a
key element of Kantian ethics. In it, WE ARE SELF-CREATORS IN THE
ULTIMATE SENSE, morally speaking, not in the Randian sense of making
some arbitrary choice to live or not to live.
> So in actuality it is not in fact conducive to "any philosophy under
> the sun".
Of course it is. None of what you posted constituted a real obstacle
to myl post. Troll on!
malenor
Q7qJzc...@comcast.com>...
> > Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
> > representing any philosophy under the sun.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Correct. Does she anywhere say that this is the sole property of RR?
Rand worded this point in terms of a juxtaposition with the opposing
(naturalistic) view of art. To paraphrase: Romanticism does not deal
with day-to-day trivia, but with "timeless, fundamental, universal
problems." It doesn't merely record, it creates. It is concerned, "not
with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to
be." (Lexicon, "Romanticism.") Therefore, she tries to draw a
necessary connection between the latter side of the juxtaposition and
Romanticism.
But in her exposition, there is in fact no necessary connection drawn
between the timeless/creative, and the concern with things as
they might be and ought to be. Hers is a "connection by comparison,"
that is, by crudely comparing an allegedly crude form of art with one
that is supposed to be culturally sophisticated through the simplistic
categories of "bad" art and "good" art. It begs the question of what
is supposedly "good," and calls it "the way things might be and ought
to be" while at the same time baptising Romanticism (the "good" art)
in the holy waters of the allegedly god-like Aristotle.
Then, after all this rhetoric, she declares that the only objective
way to tell bad art from good art is by figuring out how to dissect
a brain and see how it digests the various art-forms in its perceptual
field.
Charles Novins
> news:5851837b.04072...@posting.google.com...
> > Things as "they might be and ought to be" can be anything you want,
> > representing any philosophy under the sun.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Correct. Does she anywhere say that this is the sole property of RR?
"malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5851837b.04072...@posting.google.com...
[incoherence snipped]
CHARLES NOVINS:
Incredible incoherence. I leave it to the reader to decide whether you even
addressed my objection at all with your usual verbal avalanche.
Randroid Terminator
<mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here's a different way of explaining the same point. Remove the "bad"
side of the juxtaposition between "bad" naturalism and "good"
Romanticism in Rand's claim, leaving only the "good" side, leaving the
quote looking like this:
"Romanticism is the *conceptual* school of art. It deals with the
timeless, fundamental, universal problems and *values* of human
existence. It creates and projects. It is concerned -- in the words of
Aristotle -- with things as they might be and ought to be."
As you can see, that doesn't contain much logical content, it leaves
only a description with hardly any relationship between the terms.
Thus the oddly logical though rhetorical, emotionally persuasive
element of Rand's arguments must be found in her constant, chronic
juxtaposition of that which she characterized as "good" and "evil."
That is not very Aristotelian. It is indeed a pre-Aristotelian
rhetorical technique.
--
Randroid Terminator
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm beginning to see this more clearly now. Romanticism is juxtaposed
against Naturalism which represents the world as it is, but which, I
should add, is also as it ought to be. Whereas Romanticism represents
the world as it might be and ought to be. The purpose of art, in
either case, is to represent the world as it ought to be.
In my experience, Naturalism traditionally has tended to represent the
seedier side of life, which is "the way it is" and the way it ought to
be; Romanticism, the more exalted, heroic side of life. But they still
represent life as it is, only seen from different perspectives. They
focus on different aspects of life: the heroic, the tragic.
Parenthetically, what is lacking in Rand's explanation is an argument
concerning the connection between the moral and aesthetic "ought."
Kant thoroughly explained this point in the Critique of Aesthetic
Judgment; Rand apparently just never thought of it, or never put it
down on paper.
--
Ken Gardner
>CHARLES NOVINS:
>Incredible incoherence. I leave it to the reader to decide whether you even
>addressed my objection at all with your usual verbal avalanche.
I didn't understand him either. I tried, but failed. Clarity has
never been one of Mal's strong points to begin with.
Ken
malenor
t2q6hu9sc...@4ax.com>...
The 9th post down in the thread should clarify this issue. My focus
was primarily on the aesthetic "ought to be." But every school gives
that idea. What distinguishes Romanticism from Naturalism, according
to Rand (as if there were only those two dominant forms in all of
art history) is the "might be."
The next step in this analysis would be to determine what exactly
Aristotle meant by the phrase Rand quoted. She did not bother, as
usual, to give her readers any cite at all. I assumed, perhaps
mistakenly, that it came from Aristotle, and that it was a
correct translation from the ancient Greek text. If there is any
problem with that translation, or if Rand completely misrepresented
Aristotle's point, then I would simply point out the fact, and further
analysis would be superfluous. I don't see the point in
her attributing to Aristotle some meaning that he never intended,
if that's what happened, except to somehow or other link her ideas
with those of "Aristotle the Great" and thus lend them at least an
aura of credibility. As it stands, it is just another one of those
Rand claims which nobody has ever bothered to research that I know
of.
I know from experience however that such research tends only to do
more damage to Rand's credibility, such as in the Henry Mansel debacle
where I proved that she simply lied by quoting him out of context,
a lie of omission. But in order to uncover this fact I had to order
Mansel's book and then hunt through it for the relevant passages.
First of all, I discovered that Rand did quote him precisely. But
then the context of the quote revealed a meaning which Rand evaded
in order to further her addiction to Kant-bashing. It turned out
that what Mansel meant by "reality" in Rand's quote was not actually
stepping on Rand's toes, his was a reference to Platonic reality,
the realm of the Forms, or the "really real." Since this fact was
made clear by Mansel in the preceding paragraphs, Rand must have
simply lied.
It is therefore not out of reason to suggest that she also lied about
her attribution of the "might be and ought to be" quote. But that
wasn't my original point. I'm just saying right now that I should
have checked the quote at the beginning. However, I had other fish
to fry. But I find much to be desired in that Rand material, and it is
really difficult to say where exactly to begin cleaning up the mess
she made.
Fred Weiss
eo2ql3fb4vi1...@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:04:40 +0000 (UTC), Randroid Terminator
> <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to see this more clearly now. Romanticism is juxtaposed
> against Naturalism which represents the world as it is, but which, I
> should add, is also as it ought to be.
This is seeing it more clearly?
Malenoid is saying that whatever exists is good.
So if you depict a group of pathological killers doing what
pathological killers do and leave it at that, then that's the way
things are - and that's good. Uh, huh.
(The difference between Romanticism and Naturalism in regard to an
issue like this is that a Romanticist doesn't leave it at that. He
projects a possible scenario where the killers are thwarted through a
complex chain of events involving considerable conflict, personal and
existential, and involving great courage. A Romanticist doesn't start
from the premise that killer exist, that's the way things are, and,
gee, aren't we all latent killers anyway, so what's to be done about
it, and here's what it looks like. Now a good Naturalist writer might
depict that very well and make it very interesting, e.g The Godfather,
but it's a fundamentally different way of looking at the world than
Romanticism.)
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> This is seeing it more clearly?
>
> Malenoid is saying that whatever exists is good.
>
> So if you depict a group of pathological killers doing what
> pathological killers do and leave it at that, then that's the way
> things are - and that's good. Uh, huh.
Who ever said the way things are is good. Generally the way things are
is bloody miserable. Which is why there is still murger, rape, war,
plunder, exploitation, fraud, intimidation and just plain meanness. Very
little has changed since the year that God invented dirt.
If things -could- be different, then why aren't they different? Why does
shit still flow downhill?
Bob Kolker
Charles Novins
> > >Incredible incoherence. I leave it to the reader to decide whether you
even
> > >addressed my objection at all with your usual verbal avalanche.
> Ken Gardner <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<9ar3g0db5tbmolg
> t2q6hu9sc...@4ax.com>...
> > I didn't understand him either. I tried, but failed. Clarity has
> > never been one of Mal's strong points to begin with.
"malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5851837b.04072...@posting.google.com...
[2nd verbal avalanche snipped, this time with irrelevant reference to
unrelated conflict]
CHARLES NOVINS:
Mal, just thank Rand that The Translator is busy with a Kevin Hill post over
on APO, otherwise you'd be in it up to here.
Last chance: You said Rand's formulation that Romanticism deals with "man
as he ought to be" is too general to have meaning. Can you pen anything -
anything whatsoever - reasonably relevant in defending your assertion?
Fred Weiss
f6d...@posting.google.com>...
> Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message news:<3672fde9.0407231
> 016.47...@posting.google.com>...
> > with this view since they advocate determinism, which denies that we
> > have choice. Which is why as determinism in one form or another became
> > the predominant philosophical view (eg. from the influence of Marxism,
> > Freudianism, Behaviorism), naturalism in literature became more and
> > more dominant and romantic realism faded away.
>
> Determinism is the way things might be and ought to be.
Huh? Determinism is that however things are they had to be that way,
i.e. that there is no choice hence there is no possibility of "ought"
which presupposes choice.
>
> > On only a slightly more subtle level, with the influence of Kant in
> > particular and therefore the view that we could not know reality as it
> > really is,
>
> If phenomena are real, then they represent how reality really is. You
> are conflating the concepts of "phenomenon" and "appearance."
It doesn't...err...really...matter because you Kan't know what's real.
>
> > what difference does it make what we do since we have no
> > way of knowing if it bears any relationship to what is true or right.
> > Throw in the Kantian view that ethics is merely a totally arbitrary
> > floating abstraction with no connection to reality and you don't
> > exactly have any basis for human motivation. Not exactly conducive to
> > a romantic sense of life.
>
> The idea of an "interest" is a truly human motivation in that it
> derives from the nature of the rational faculty itself. It is a
> key element of Kantian ethics. In it, WE ARE SELF-CREATORS IN THE
> ULTIMATE SENSE, morally speaking, not in the Randian sense of making
> some arbitrary choice to live or not to live.
Whatever that is supposed to mean. (And the choice to live or not is
not arbitrary).
>
> > So in actuality it is not in fact conducive to "any philosophy under
> > the sun".
>
> Of course it is.
We're waiting. Any time you want to say something of any substance, if
you experience sufficient pressure to do so, just belch it out.
Fred Weiss
Randroid Terminator
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
..
..
.. Fred Weiss wrote:
..
.. > This is seeing it more clearly?
.. >
.. > Malenoid is saying that whatever exists is good.
.. >
.. > So if you depict a group of pathological killers doing what
.. > pathological killers do and leave it at that, then that's the way
.. > things are - and that's good. Uh, huh.
..
.. Who ever said the way things are is good. Generally the way things
are
.. is bloody miserable. Which is why there is still murger, rape, war,
.. plunder, exploitation, fraud, intimidation and just plain meanness.
Very
.. little has changed since the year that God invented dirt.
..
.. If things -could- be different, then why aren't they different? Why
does
.. shit still flow downhill?
Notice how certain Objectivists always focus on "pathological killers"
and the like. Do you suppose it is envy-based?
--
Robert J. Kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> Notice how certain Objectivists always focus on "pathological killers"
> and the like. Do you suppose it is envy-based?
Evil abides. Goodness is fleeting. Justice a rare occurrence. At least
that is what my daily newspaper is telling me.
Bob Kolker
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> > This is seeing it more clearly?
> >
> > Malenoid is saying that whatever exists is good.
> >
> > So if you depict a group of pathological killers doing what
> > pathological killers do and leave it at that, then that's the way
> > things are - and that's good. Uh, huh.
The glass is more than half full, because morality is evolving in a positive
way. This is largely due to the ascendance of Judeo-Christian ethics.
Art, however, as far as far as I know, reflects only the inner life of the
artist and its value depends on how it elicits feelings and emotions on the
observer. Regarding quality, it makes no difference whether it belongs in
one school or another. That is the long and the short - reality - the facts
as they are. The rest is bull shit, IMHO.
Charles Novins
news:007101c47289$7b432320$64fe...@cinci.rr.com...
> The glass is more than half full, because morality is evolving in a
positive
> way. This is largely due to the ascendance of Judeo-Christian ethics.
THE BOY WONDER:
Holy mother-of-all-whoppers, Batman!
ACAR:
> Art, however, as far as far as I know, reflects only the inner life of the
> artist and its value depends on how it elicits feelings and emotions on
the
> observer.
BATMAN:
You see, son, even in the very moment when you think it was that
biggest-of-all whoppers, yet another bigger one comes along.
ACAR:
Regarding quality, it makes no difference whether it belongs in one school
or another. That is the long and the short - reality - the facts as they
are. The rest is bull shit, IMHO.
THE GREEN LANTERN:
Is he saying quality is completely subjective, then saying quality is not a
function of school (thereby implicitly affirming an objective measure?)
YOUR TRANSLATOR:
Read him and weep.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
> ACAR:
> Regarding quality, it makes no difference whether it belongs in one school
> or another. That is the long and the short - reality - the facts as they
> are. The rest is bull shit, IMHO.
>
> THE GREEN LANTERN:
> Is he saying quality is completely subjective, then saying quality is not
a
> function of school (thereby implicitly affirming an objective measure?)
Green Lantern, I swear that I don't understand that logic. How do you figure
that Rand was an art subjectivist by committing to the Rommantic school?
What does style have to do with the presence or absence of an objective
measure?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
>
> On only a slightly more subtle level, with the influence of Kant in
> particular and therefore the view that we could not know reality as it
> really is, what difference does it make what we do since we have no
> way of knowing if it bears any relationship to what is true or right.
When Fred tries to get subtle, stay clear.
When Fred eats eggs in the morning he is at peace with the world because he
knows that they were real eggs from a real chicken. This is why he is able
to run a successful bookstore.
I on the other hand get confused and disoriented unless I can figure out
which came first - the chicken or the egg. This faulty connection with
reality stifles my productivity and possibly makes me become a sociopath or
even worse, a Democrat.
The proof that dreams and fantasies can actually nourish the soul is in the
fact that Fred writes that bullshit and then goes to work with a sense of
pride and satisfaction, much like Billy Graham.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
> If phenomena are real, then they represent how reality really is. You
> are conflating the concepts of "phenomenon" and "appearance."
The ideal man and Galt's Gulch would be a contradiction of Objectivism if
Rand had not connected them to reality by claiming that they were realistic
possibilities, and considering herself an exemplar. To me this seems to be a
fatal error of a reality based philosophy, since we know that she was
delusional in that respect, and perfection is an impossible ideal. If John
Galt can never actually exist Objectivism comes crashing down.
OT. I have a question for Fred. Fred believes that the reason why things are
not the way they ought to be is that man has free will. If there is no
innate tendency to "evil" (objectivese) then, other things being equal,
human choices would be about 50-50. (Any statistical deviation would show a
tendency.) The question is why has the human race from the beginning failed
to consist of 50% heroes? Why not a tendency to do the "rational" thing
which should logically be the chosen tendency, unless something else is
pulling the other way? Why did Neanderthals choose to bash each other with
clubs and not to respect each other's rights, which was the rational thing
to do? Are you blaming Kant for Neanderthal ethics?
Fred Weiss
4h1hadms6hvg...@4ax.com>...
> Notice how certain Objectivists always focus on "pathological killers"
> and the like. Do you suppose it is envy-based?
Notice how Malenoid when he can't belch, just burps. Do you suppose it
is because he's a moron?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
cinci.rr.com>...
> ...perfection is an impossible ideal. If John
> Galt can never actually exist Objectivism comes crashing down.
I'm sure you find that reassuring as you drool into your morning
coffee. Unfortunately, Acorn, the mental fog in which you have chosen
to go through life is not justified by either the possibility or
impossibility of a John Galt.
>
> OT. I have a question for Fred. Fred believes that the reason why things are
> not the way they ought to be is that man has free will.
Fred doesn't believe that. Fred believes that we could not discuss the
way things ought to be if we did not have free will, nor could we
strive to achieve it. The reason why things are not the way they ought
to be is that people don't choose to strive for it. You, and your
self-induced mental fog, being an example.
Fred Weiss
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:<00b501c472a6$811e4a00$64fea8c0@
> cinci.rr.com>...
>
> > ...perfection is an impossible ideal. If John
> > Galt can never actually exist Objectivism comes crashing down.
>
> I'm sure you find that reassuring as you drool into your morning
> coffee. Unfortunately, Acorn, the mental fog in which you have chosen
> to go through life is not justified by either the possibility or
> impossibility of a John Galt.
I knew that you would disagree. It is too painful for you to contemplate.
The absence of argument says it all.
> >I have a question for Fred. Fred believes that the reason why things are
> > not the way they ought to be is that man has free will.
>
> The reason why things are not the way they ought
> to be is that people don't choose to strive for it.
Fred is an echo, albeit in a state of confusion.
malenor
422.49...@posting.google.com>...
> Fred doesn't believe that. Fred believes that we could not discuss the
> way things ought to be if we did not have free will, nor could we
> strive to achieve it. The reason why things are not the way they ought
> to be is that people don't choose to strive for it. You, and your
> self-induced mental fog, being an example.
Naturalism is also concerned with the way things ought to be, that is,
people ought to be determined rather than free. On the other hand, it
is Romanticism which is concerned with the way things are, that is,
people have free-will.
Charles Novins
> Naturalism is also concerned with the way things ought to be, that is,
> people ought to be determined rather than free. On the other hand, it
> is Romanticism which is concerned with the way things are, that is,
> people have free-will.
YOUR TRANSLATOR:
[spin] [CLICK]
[spin] [CLICK]
[spin] [CLICK]
[spin] [POW!!!!!!!!] [splatter]
Arnold
Damn, and I was hoping you could help.
--
The greatest obscenity is mindlessness.
It is the source of irrationality, and irrationality
is the source of mans most despicable acts.
Arnold.
.
Randroid Terminator
<arnold...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.Damn, and I was hoping you could help.
Novins can't even help himself out of his alcohol addiction, that's
why I advised that he find a meeting somewhere. He was better off
trying to suck booze out of Ayn Rand's wrinkled old nipples than from
a bottle.
--
Charles Novins
> Novins can't even help himself out of his alcohol addiction, that's
> why I advised that he find a meeting somewhere. He was better off
> trying to suck booze out of Ayn Rand's wrinkled old nipples than from
> a bottle.
CHARLES NOVINS:
My name is Charles and I drink to excess, but I am not an utterly humorless
penis. [<hic>]
malenor
.183303$Oq2.153504@attbi_s52>...
> Randroid Terminator wrote:
Or you might have happened across an issue of one of Objectivism's
various newsletters.
ah3133
alcumf57rleu...@4ax.com>...
> "Romantic Realism," Rand wrote in the intro to The Fountainhead, "is
> concerned... not with things as they are, but with things as they
> might be and ought to be."
>
> Realism, so long as the artist represents it as "the way things might
> be and ought to be."
but your conception of "the way things might be and ought to be:" has
to be epistemologically sound. suppose you create, for example, a
fictional world in which the fundamentals of right and wrong are just
a reflection of your irrational emotions in real life. i.e., you hate
canadians in real life, so you create a fantasy universe where
canadians are somehow inherently evil. that might be romantic, in the
sense of being a reflection of your ideals, but it's not realism,
because it's not rationally grounded in real-life.
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
.Randroid Terminator <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kvk0g056k
.alcumf57rleu...@4ax.com>...
.> "Romantic Realism," Rand wrote in the intro to The Fountainhead,
"is
.> concerned... not with things as they are, but with things as they
.> might be and ought to be."
.>
.> In other words, almost any form of art could be classified as
Romantic
.> Realism, so long as the artist represents it as "the way things
might
.> be and ought to be."
.
.but your conception of "the way things might be and ought to be:" has
.to be epistemologically sound. suppose you create, for example, a
.fictional world in which the fundamentals of right and wrong are just
.a reflection of your irrational emotions in real life. i.e., you hate
.canadians in real life, so you create a fantasy universe where
.canadians are somehow inherently evil. that might be romantic, in the
.sense of being a reflection of your ideals, but it's not realism,
.because it's not rationally grounded in real-life.
That's a different question, since the Rand quote really concerned
only Romanticism, and not Romantic Realism.
But the Realism isn't very apparent in her novels either, especially
concerning the last ones. AS wasn't very much like our present world
or any past time, it was a sort of made-up universe.
Besides, to represent things as they might be and ought to be seems
more idealistic, utopian, like Rand's "Utopia of Greed." How Rand
considered her fiction to be a form of Realism has always perplexed
me, as it should perplex anybody who takes a closer look at that
label. However, the Romanticism is easily seen in the heroic aspects
of her novels, and really isn't debatable.
--
http://web.newsguy.com/commonsense/intro.html#2cherry-skirvin
"They were playing to an anti-intellectual mob,
and the better educated people online were
usually the ones targeted. Anti-intellectualism
is as much a form of bigotry as is anything else,
and as anybody who has ever had to deal with
bigotry knows firsthand, you can't win with a
bigot. He remembers what he wants to remember,
and is consumed with contemptuous rage when you
remind him of the rest."
--
http://web.newsguy.com/commonsense/cherryintro.html
"In an argument between somebody who is a relative
jerk and somebody who is reasonable, the jerk is
having fun. That's what makes him a jerk."
"The existence of the mail function in Usenet was billed as a
"corrective measure" for this problem. It turned out to be exactly the
opposite. It was a failure, because, like Usenet in general, it was
designed for use by human beings without human nature being taken into
account in its design." (A lot like Marxism, and
Libertarianism...)
ah3133
l58r7sid2347...@4ax.com>...
in reference to literature, i would agree term "realism" is probably
misapplied. she describes art as "a selective re-creation of reality
according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments". i think that
for her, the metaphysical value judgement is the essential thing that
has to refer to reality. i think that she would say an artist has free
reign in re-creating reality any way they want to, as long as the
metaphysical value judgements are sound. take for example a movie like
star wars. the setting is exotic and fantastic, but it can still have
things to say about power, or man vs. machine, or mind over matter
that are relevant to the author's own sense of reality. i think that
rand's novel "anthem" could be thought of this way as well.
Gorne
Romantic Realism, so long as the artist represents it as "the way
things might be and ought to be."
Then the claim was reduced to "Romanticism is the *conceptual* school
of art. It deals with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems
and *values* of human existence. It creates and projects. It is
concerned -- in the words of Aristotle -- with things as they might be
and ought to be."
Only to get us soon to Fred eats eggs in the morning. This is why he
is able
to run a successful bookstore. I on the other hand get confused and
possibly makes me become a sociopath or even worse, a Democrat. A
sentence that could have made Salvador Daly even more proud of
himself.
Artist may describe dreams and fantasies that can actually nourish the
soul and motivate Fred to write and feel like Billy Graham.
It remains that Art is descriptive by its nature, and that many great
artists in their effort to describe the timeless and the fundamental
have struggled with the problem of their craft. For instance it is in
finding a way to describe the ebbs of water in a swimming pool that
west cost suburban vanity was described . Van Gogh similarly painted
ebb in the night sky to describe the exhilaration of the Arlesian
climate. Was it the staff "dreams are made off?
Ken Gardner
>i think that she would say an artist has free
>reign in re-creating reality any way they want to, as long as the
>metaphysical value judgements are sound. take for example a movie like
>star wars. the setting is exotic and fantastic, but it can still have
>things to say about power, or man vs. machine, or mind over matter
>that are relevant to the author's own sense of reality. i think that
>rand's novel "anthem" could be thought of this way as well.
It borders on obscene to lump Anthem with that movie, which glorifies
such anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes as the primacy of
consciousness.
Ken
Fred Weiss
31...@posting.google.com>...
> in reference to literature, i would agree term "realism" is probably
> misapplied. she describes art as "a selective re-creation of reality
> according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments". i think that
> for her, the metaphysical value judgement is the essential thing that
> has to refer to reality. i think that she would say an artist has free
> reign in re-creating reality any way they want to, as long as the
> metaphysical value judgements are sound. take for example a movie like
> star wars. the setting is exotic and fantastic, but it can still have
> things to say about power, or man vs. machine, or mind over matter
> that are relevant to the author's own sense of reality. i think that
> rand's novel "anthem" could be thought of this way as well.
I disagree. I think the "realism" aspect of it is very important as it
applies to the proper sense of "could be". Otherwise you get into the
realm of what AR called "bootleg romanticism", i.e. the category where
they in effect try to sneak romanticism in via fantasy, e.g. Superman
or the like. I personally find some of that kind of totally
unrealistic romanticism really off-putting, an example of which are
the "Charlie's Angels" movies or "The Matrix" movies. I was able to
watch about 10 minutes of one of the Matrix movies and couldn't go on.
It was just too ridiculous.
That said, I think certain inherently unrealistic elements used as
plot devices can be effective in making certain types of points. But
it's only because they use that one element as a device and then the
rest of it is very well grounded. I'm thinking of the "Jekyll and
Hyde" type of idea. Another would be the "Invisible Man" idea. Another
might be "Time Travel". Another recently very interesting one was
"Groundhog Day". If you accept that one element as an act of fanciful
imagination - to see realistically how it might play out, it can be
very interesting.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> might be "Time Travel". Another recently very interesting one was
> "Groundhog Day". If you accept that one element as an act of fanciful
> imagination - to see realistically how it might play out, it can be
> very interesting.
Ground Hog Day was the first decent existentialist play (motion picture)
I have everseen. After umpteen futile efforts to evade reality (as it
was presumed to be) Phil the Weatherman finally accepts it and does
something positive with it. If Reality hands you a lemon, then make
lemonaid. I love that movie. It is forever on my personal top ten.
It even embodies Objectivist favorites such as the principle of
identity. Things are what they are. But in between things being what
they are is plenty of space for us to make choices.
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> >star wars. the setting is exotic and fantastic, but it can still have
> >things to say about power, or man vs. machine, or mind over matter
> >that are relevant to the author's own sense of reality. i think that
> >rand's novel "anthem" could be thought of this way as well.
> It borders on obscene to lump Anthem with that movie, which glorifies
> such anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes as the primacy of
> consciousness.
I love Star Wars, but I pretty much enjoy the story as only "having
things to say" about a kid getting the hell out of the desert and going
off and having an adventure. The anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes
are rather easily dismissed in the first movie -- if one forgets
everything that we know comes along in the next two (and don't even get
me started on the recent crappy ones). The "things to say about power,
or man vs. machine, or mind over matter" are just pretentious twaddle.
Elsewhere, Fred mentioned "Charlie's Angels" and "The Matrix" in this
context, and I found that the unrealism in the former was much easier
for me to roll with than in the latter. Maybe that's just because the
girls are prettier -- but I was musing that maybe I have higher
expectations for Science Fiction. In "The Matrix," the unrealistic
elements are front-and-center and presented as ideas to think about. In
"Charlie's Angels" or most James Bond movies, not being bound by
plausibility is just an excuse for wacky stunts. For some reason that
doesn't bother me the way I'll get stuck on some dumb concept or bad
physics in an SF movie, and have a hard time enjoying it.
It bugs the hell out of my dad, though -- he can't stand those 007
movies, because it's "all so phony." Which is odd, because as far as I
know he still believes in life after death and labor unions and votes
Democrat...
ah3133
jnf0kcqqh...@4ax.com>...
you're right, i didn't mean to equate the two in terms of value
judgmements. i just wanted to use a sci-fi example, and that was the
first that came to mind.
although ayn rand also said that a work could be well-done in terms of
re-creating reality, even if it's metaphysical value judgements were
poor. for example, she though dostoyevsky was an excellent writer in
terms of literary ability, even though his philosophical ideas were
flawed
Gorne
I'm thinking of the "Jekyll and
> Hyde" type of idea.
I tend to agree with your exemples
What do you believe Ann Rand would differentiate between two versions
of the Hyde character.
a) The image of Jekyll is morphing into the heavilly make up
representation of an ugly person Hyde.
b) Jekyll, physically unchanged, take an obvious pleasure to tripa
nurse pushing a whellchair causing the patient to speed up down hill.
Personaly I think that a) is ridiculous while b) is artistic.
My point is that it is not enough to have a plot. The way you treat it
matter and inform on the authors philosophic values.
Is this a trivial point?
Fred Weiss
e...@posting.google.com>...
(a) is technically "unrealistic" in the sense that it is physically
impossible for someone to transform in that way (other than by, as you
say, make-up), but as a literary device to convey symbolically how a
personality can be split between, say, superficial goodness along with
underlying viciousness, I think, if done well, can be very powerful
literarily. In fact there are people like that. And the power of that
device in invoking that type of personality is underscored by the
extent to which Jekyll and Hyde has become an icon for a certain kind
of behavior.
Fred Weiss
Gorne
> device in invoking that type of personality is underscored by the
> extent to which Jekyll and Hyde has become an icon for a certain kind
> of behavior.
I agree with you but to believe that an ugly person is evil is
reveling a philosophical bias.
On the contrary believing that some evil person take pleasure to make
others suffer ill fortune reveles a very different philosophy.
I respect and prefer the second.
By choosing his device the artist choose his public.
The values of art objects are not universal. They are subjective and
relative. I don't recognise the artistic value of a statue of snow
white in my garden. But that does not prevent Waltz Dysney to be
accptable as an artist by many individuals.
Ken Gardner
>I personally find some of that kind of totally
>unrealistic romanticism really off-putting, an example of which are
>the "Charlie's Angels" movies or "The Matrix" movies. I was able to
>watch about 10 minutes of one of the Matrix movies and couldn't go on.
>It was just too ridiculous.
I didn't last that long. Nor could I last more than a few minutes
with any of the Lord of the Ring movies, or the recent wave of Star
Wars movies. I like movies that are both Romantic (as Rand used the
term) AND realistic. An excellent example of both, in my opinion, is
the recent HPO series Band of Brothers.
>That said, I think certain inherently unrealistic elements used as
>plot devices can be effective in making certain types of points. But
>it's only because they use that one element as a device and then the
>rest of it is very well grounded. I'm thinking of the "Jekyll and
>Hyde" type of idea. Another would be the "Invisible Man" idea. Another
>might be "Time Travel". Another recently very interesting one was
>"Groundhog Day". If you accept that one element as an act of fanciful
>imagination - to see realistically how it might play out, it can be
>very interesting.
I agree -- if it isn't overdone. Two other recent examples were
Gladiator and Minority Report, and Troy could have fallen in this
category if the writing of the script wasn't so awful.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> >star wars. the setting is exotic and fantastic, but it can still have
>> >things to say about power, or man vs. machine, or mind over matter
>> >that are relevant to the author's own sense of reality. i think that
>> >rand's novel "anthem" could be thought of this way as well.
>> It borders on obscene to lump Anthem with that movie, which glorifies
>> such anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes as the primacy of
>> consciousness.
>I love Star Wars, but I pretty much enjoy the story as only "having
>things to say" about a kid getting the hell out of the desert and going
>off and having an adventure. The anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes
>are rather easily dismissed in the first movie -- if one forgets
>everything that we know comes along in the next two (and don't even get
>me started on the recent crappy ones). The "things to say about power,
>or man vs. machine, or mind over matter" are just pretentious twaddle.
That was my initial reaction to the movie as well, but over the years
my reaction has changed as it has gotten harder and harder for me to
dismiss or ignore those anti-Objectivist metaphysical themes you
mentioned.
>Elsewhere, Fred mentioned "Charlie's Angels" and "The Matrix" in this
>context, and I found that the unrealism in the former was much easier
>for me to roll with than in the latter. Maybe that's just because the
>girls are prettier -- but I was musing that maybe I have higher
>expectations for Science Fiction. In "The Matrix," the unrealistic
>elements are front-and-center and presented as ideas to think about. In
>"Charlie's Angels" or most James Bond movies, not being bound by
>plausibility is just an excuse for wacky stunts. For some reason that
>doesn't bother me the way I'll get stuck on some dumb concept or bad
>physics in an SF movie, and have a hard time enjoying it.
I haven't seen the Charlie's Angels movies or any of the Matrix
movies. I actually watch very few new movies. This year I have
actually seen two movies in theaters, which is already one movie more
than my yearly average. The two movies were Troy (which was a major
disappointment -- this is definitely a case in which the book was
better than the movie) and I, Robot (which I actually enjoyed after
having very low expectations).
I also don't get stuck on fantasy or science fiction per se (including
stunts and special effects) -- provided that the alternative universe
created in the movie is mostly consistent with a primacy of existence
orientation. It doesn't have to be perfect -- otherwise it wouldn't
be fantasy, and in many cases it wouldn't be science fiction, either
-- but any deviations must be metaphysically insignificant in relation
to the overall story.
And perhaps even more important, the story itself must be consistent
with the principles of Romantic Realism for me to enjoy the movie,
i.e. not only must it be based on the right metaphysics (with any
deviations being insignificant), but also it must show people making
choices over time and the story being about the choices they make. In
other words, the story must have a good plot and interesting
characters.
>It bugs the hell out of my dad, though -- he can't stand those 007
>movies, because it's "all so phony." Which is odd, because as far as I
>know he still believes in life after death and labor unions and votes
>Democrat...
I love the early Bond movies myself. :) Action adventure movies fall
into the same category as the fantasy and science fiction movies
mentioned above -- my enjoyment of them is a direct function of the
quality of the plot and the (mostly) right metaphysics.
Ken
Acar
> Gorne <bo...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<91f9f335.0408060805.4eff6
> e...@posting.google.com>...
> > Fred Weiss
>
> impossible for someone to transform in that way (other than by, as you
> say, make-up), but as a literary device to convey symbolically how a
> personality can be split between, say, superficial goodness along with
> underlying viciousness, I think, if done well, can be very powerful
> literarily. In fact there are people like that. And the power of that
> device in invoking that type of personality is underscored by the
> extent to which Jekyll and Hyde has become an icon for a certain kind
> of behavior.
Wrong. The Jekyll Hyde parable is R. L. Stevenson's literary dissertation on
the dual nature of the human psyche. It is in direct opposition to Rand's
rejection of the concept of original sin. It is not about the hypocrisy of
*some* people, as you suggest. It's about man as man.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gorne" <bo...@optonline.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Romantic Realism
> Waltz Dysney
You are confusing Disney's name with Weiss' style of argumentation.