Values
Amol Kapila
what makes a value rational and a value objective. For example, if I
like classical music and a friend of mine dislikes it, is one of us
being irrational and is one objectively correct?
Randroid Terminator
According to Rand's theory of aesthetics, musical taste is
non-objective, that is, subjective. She stated that the only way to
objectify musical taste would be to examine some brains to see how
they process music:
"Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no
objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the
field of music. (There are certain technical criteria, dealing mainly
with the complexity of harmonic structures, but there are no criteria
for identifying the content, i.e., the emotional meaning of a given
piece of music and thus demonstrating the esthetic objectivity of a
given response.)
At present, our understanding of music is confined to the gathering of
material, i.e., to the level of descriptive observations. Until it is
brought to the stage of conceptualization, we have to treat musical
tastes or preferences as a subjective matter -- not in the
metaphysical, but in the epistemological sense; i.e., not in the sense
that these preferences are, in fact, causeless and arbitrary, but in
the sense that we do not know their cause. No one, therefore, can
claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of
others. Where no objective proof is available, it's every man for
himself -- and only for himself.
The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the
key to the secret of music is physiological -- it lies in the nature
of the process by which man perceives sounds -- and the answer would
require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a
philosopher (an esthetician)."
(Ayn Rand, Art and Cognition: "The Objectivist," April 1971)
--
Patrick Crosby
Before trying to apply Objectivism to your life, I would suggest looking
into alternative theories of value. Rand's, to put it bluntly, is just
nuts. The question you raise about musical taste naturally arises from
Rand's theory. But as I think you already suspect, that question is
really quite silly. But many followers of Rand really do believe that to
have musical tastes different from Rand's is "irrational." And of
course, Rand hated Beethoven and Bach, and thought their work was
basically drivel. See now why I say her value theory is "just nuts?" As
a composer myself, I can assure you that while Rachmaninoff wrote some
fine works (the Second Piano Concerto I would not count among them, but
the 3rd I would), he would have been nothing were it not for the
influence of Wagner-- who Rand also hated. And as for JS Bach---
probably the greatest composer who ever lived, with Beethoven a not too
far distant second. Rachmaninoff would probably be in the 20s or 30s on
that list--- not really too shabby when you think about it. But he
certainly wasn't the greatest composer who ever lived.
The alternative theories which Rand discusses are but caricatures of
real alternative theories, and therefore demonstrative of Rand's deep
intellectual dishonesty.
Just do a Google search on "value theory." You will find plenty. And
don't make the mistake of letting Rand's aesthetic tastes dictate yours.
Rand knew virtually nothing about music, and according to reports,
listened to a lot of junk--- far worse than even Rahcmainioff's 2nd or
Tchaikowsky's 1st Piano Concerto (a real crushing bore in my view--- all
sugar, all goo. The musical equivalent of cheap pancake syrup :).
Patrick Crosby
again how silly Rand's ideas on aesthetics are. Elsewhere, there are
accounts of professional concert pianist arguing with Rand that certain
other composers (maybe Beethoven, maybe Bach, not sure) were better than
Rachmaninoff and Rand just had a fit. Caused them to cease to be friends.
Anyway, if you want an interesting aesthetic theory, take a look at
Theodore W. Adorno's Aesthetic Theory. Elsewhere, in one of the
anthologies, you will find a short essay of his called "Alienated
Masterpiece: Beethoven's Missa Solemnis." Adorno was also a composer,
having studied 2 years under Alban Berg. According to reports he was
also a phenomenal pianist. Never made any commercial recording though :(
Randroid Terminator wrote:
Ralph Hertle
Amol:
That's an excellent question. That is precisely the right type of
organization of concepts that is necessary for a future universal theory
of esthetics.
One day the esthetic philosophers of Objectivism will organize a
coherent advanced theory of esthetics that goes beyond Ayn Rand's
general observations and her high degree of development of the esthetics
of Romantic Realism and literature. At this time the David Kelly TOC
issue which claims no systematic approach to the development of
esthetics, or the philosophy of esthetics for Objectivism has forced a
polarization of ideas that makes the philosophy of esthetics a legal
issue rather than an esthetics issue.
We who need to understand art and to formulate a system of preferences,
or preferences, have been left in the lurch.
Objectivism is what Ayn Rand wrote, and she did considerable work in the
study of values.
Individual preferences regarding values are most important for esthetic
preferences.
One should practice learning one's preferences and knowing why.
BTW, one must state the context of the discussions, and also provide
numerous examples for discussions of art. Broad generalizations are
rather useless in discussing value preferences. If you said that you
like Catholic or Jewish or Objectivist women, and that your remarks were
apropos of value and esthetic preferences, I would say that you have
some serious problems. What about Catholic lesbians, or Jewish female
Pragmatists, or Objectivist paranoid Social-Metaphysicians? Or just
plain Surrealists or Nihilists? Examples in the world of art are all
important.
Regarding Classical music the term that your friend has not used is
'some', or 'this specific work'. He is overgeneralizing. On the other
hand, a term a lady friend of mine used to use (On the other hand), it
is important to concentrate on what you like and build from there.
I once found one piece of music, and I played it again and again,
...until I had explored what were the most important qualities of the
work. I studied the structures, and I tried to memorize the harmonies
and inventions. My understanding of what I enjoyed grew.
During my high school years I had little contact with records. I did
have my car radio, and I spent hours of time driving and listening to
the radio. I enjoyed the music, and I had no other understanding. My
preferences developed structurally, and they became (to me) rather
sophisticated. If I could replay more of my noted preferences and
selections I would have more, .....more pride of acquisition, knowing,
and enjoyment.
You can't knock enjoyment and selection: that's an essential for life.
A goal would be to know what you like... and why... for each work of music.
Classical or Non-Classical? That is so stupid a differentiation. Note
that many Classical composers have sought out the themes of folk music,
and that many Jazz composers have studied the works of Classical composers.
Prefer the selected individual works, find out why, and develop your own
possibly unique preference structure from there.
When I was in High School I disliked Classical Music, I was into Rhythm
and Blues, and early Rock and Roll, and I had to listen to numerous
other types of music to understand that there existed individual works
that were remarkably enjoyable and sophisticated.
It took years for me to enjoy some violin music compositions.
Ralph Hertle
Randroid Terminator
Rand was certainly inconsistent in the application of values to her
own life. This example points to one of Rand's failings, where her
followers cannot claim that she was the only philosopher who tried to
objectify a value. Because in this case, she is practically the only
one who refused to do so on the grounds of lack of empirical or
scientific evidence. In other words, her philosophy bogged down at
this point due to lack of empirical evidence. But that didn't stop
others from making the attempt to objectify taste, including musical
taste.
But she never got around to explaining exactly how dissecting a brain
to understand the physical source of musical appreciation would
translate into objective values, how that would determine whether an
aesthetic musical judgment is good, bad, or somewhere in the middle.
For Rand, an individual's act of musical valuation is immediate,
reflexive, yet subconscious. And this only applies to music.
That just seems fallacious to me. Almost all evaluation or judgment is
spontaneous, or nearly so. Many things "strike" us in a certain way,
whether those things are aesthetic or moral, artistic or willful. They
either "strike a moral chord" or they "strike an aesthetic chord." A
brand new sports car strikes an aesthetic chord with many people;
using that same car to ram into a group of school children waiting at
a bus stop strikes a definite moral chord in most of us. Because there
is waiting, subconsciously, certain moral and aesthetic "premises"
which are stimulated to automatically respond by such sensory
perceptions. Rand called it a metaphysical "sense of life."
But if all such evaluation is subconscious (although it can be made
conscious), then shouldn't all aesthetic and moral evaluation be first
subjected to rigorous scientific methods? Shouldn't the same brains be
dissected to determine the source of moral evaluation, to root out the
physiological source of a metaphysical sense of life? And until that
is accomplished, isn't all such judgment subjective, a matter of
individual taste or liking, in which it is every man for himself (as
Rand put it)?
Ayn Rand would have us believe that the source of all her objective
moral judgment was previous moral analysis, and that she never
possessed the ability to objectively judge morality until she came up
with a moral philosophy. Therefore, she would have us believe that
the source of her own morality was not moral feelings she had all her
life, almost innately, but was the result of intense
moral-philosophical questioning. I'm sure she engaged in that process;
but what prompted her to engage in such moral questioning in the first
place? Blank-out.
Then there is the question of why she only exempted musical taste from
an objective aesthetic theory, and not other forms of taste...
--
R Lawrence
> But many followers of Rand really do believe that to
>have musical tastes different from Rand's is "irrational."
Name some of these followers. Thanks in advance.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
Patrick Crosby
for a start? Oh, and Winston Duke--- for sure.
R Lawrence
>>> But many followers of Rand really do believe that to
>>>have musical tastes different from Rand's is "irrational."
>
>>Name some of these followers. Thanks in advance.
>
>Jaye B. Conne. David Posmontier. Michael Madej. Alex Bleier. How is that
>for a start? Oh, and Winston Duke--- for sure.
So now we have a list of names, albeit a list of rather obscure people. But at
least we have a list. Next, do you have any evidence that these people hold
the belief you claim, and is that evidence available for public review (i.e.,
not some previously undocumented personal experience of yours)?
Patrick Crosby
> > So now we have a list of names, albeit a list of rather obscure people.
> > But at least we have a list. Next, do you have any evidence that these
> > people hold
> the belief you claim, and is that evidence available for public review (i
> .e., not some previously undocumented personal experience of yours)?
I have only the experience of my own personal discussions with these
people, decades ago. But nonetheless, your claim that this experience of
mine is "undocumented" is ludicrous on the face of it. I have documented
it here. If that's not good enough for you, I really don't give a flying
fig. I really don't. I have nothing further to say about this most
uninteresting question of yours. If you want really hard sociological
data, go out and collect it yourself.
For anyone else who has any doubts about my claim that there are
people who actually think Ayn Rand's taste in music is something worth
taking seriously, visit this site http://dismuke.org/aynrand/selections.html
Also, if any of you still think Rand knew something about music, look at
Barbara Branden's Biography. Look up "Bach," "Beethoven," and Wagner in
the index. You will find that her tastes in music were something
bordering on the Philistine. The greater the music, the more she
disliked it. Of course, the same is true of Rand's taste in literature.
Not only did she adore "Tiddlywink" music, she loved tiddlywink
literature as well. Unless, of course, you think Mickey Spillane was
greater than Thomas Mann. Yes, Ayn Rand, the Queen of Tiddlywink.
Don Matt
> > I am studying how to apply Objectivism to my life and was wondering
> > what makes a value rational and a value objective. For example, if I
> > like classical music and a friend of mine dislikes it, is one of us
> > being irrational and is one objectively correct?
>
>
> Amol:
>
> That's an excellent question. That is precisely the right type of
> organization of concepts that is necessary for a future universal theory
> of esthetics.
I considered seriously what you´ve written and have just realized
that the rational value, the aesthethical value of an art, does not
necessarilly relates with the correctness of I liking it or not. For
example, I may be pretty impressed with the math complexity of a
classical music (I like, in a rational way) but I may not feel any
good emotion with it. I may be attracted much more by a Rolling Stones
music, which has a very simple construction when compared with a
classical Mozart´s.
I dare say that there is a kind of magnetism that links us to the
more simple forms of art just the same way we feel a kind of
attraction to our more basic impulses instead to our reason. I think
it requires a kind of self effort in order to learn how to appreciate
more complex forms of art. Once I understand that there are simple and
complex forms of art I rationally direct myself in order to try ro
undertand and enjoy more elaborated forms of art.
Then I think the real question is: should I sacrifice myself in order
to understand and really like classical music? Even when I know
classical music is more elaborated, more complex and rational, why is
it wrong to like (to prefer) folk rock?
Don.
Charles Novins
news:cleoh0dbrq5cq0ork...@4ax.com...
> "Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no
> objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the
> The nature of musical perception has not been discovered because the
> key to the secret of music is physiological -- it lies in the nature
> of the process by which man perceives sounds -- and the answer would
> require the joint effort of a physiologist, a psychologist and a
> philosopher (an esthetician)."
>
> (Ayn Rand, Art and Cognition: "The Objectivist," April 1971)
CHARLES NOVINS:
Excellent respnse.
I reiterate my frequent observation that Malenor is qualitatively different
from other trolls that menace HPO because he has actual, demonstrable, and
often detailed knowledge of the philosophy's literature.
Yes, this makes his failure to undertsand it all the more egregious, but
there is simply no comparison to the literally know-nothing trolls like
Canteuso and Bobby V.
Don Matt
> an objective aesthetic theory, and not other forms of taste...
First of all let me say that the neurophisiologycal effects of
classical music on brain heve been documented. Itæ„€ not undebatable
data but seems that classical music stimulates human brain in a sense
that some IQ tests have improven. This is mostly true when related
with Mozart愀 and that愀 why it愀 called the "Mozart effect". I悲 say
that there is a group of philosophers who need to update their
scientific informations.
But let me just point that seems that if there is a subonscious
taste, this is much more the music than a moral value for example.
Music directs to our emotions much more than to our reason and I悲
dare say that if there is a Mozart effect itæ„€ because we keep an
emotional state compatible with reasoning.
(would like to have time to elaborate better...)
Don.
Randroid Terminator
<dma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Then there is the question of why she only exempted musical taste from
>> an objective aesthetic theory, and not other forms of taste...
>
> First of all let me say that the neurophisiologycal effects of
>classical music on brain heve been documented. Itæ„€ not undebatable
>data but seems that classical music stimulates human brain in a sense
>that some IQ tests have improven. This is mostly true when related
>with Mozart愀 and that愀 why it愀 called the "Mozart effect". I悲 say
>that there is a group of philosophers who need to update their
>scientific informations.
I've seen the same study of the effects of classical music on IQ.
That's a more indirect approach to the topic than dissecting brains.
> But let me just point that seems that if there is a subonscious
>taste, this is much more the music than a moral value for example.
>Music directs to our emotions much more than to our reason and I悲
>dare say that if there is a Mozart effect itæ„€ because we keep an
>emotional state compatible with reasoning.
> (would like to have time to elaborate better...)
But I am not basically relating the moral to the subconscious
emotional process. I am looking at the notion of a sense-of-life and
wondering how it is that Rand relates all such responses to one's
sense-of-life, but manages to distinguish the moral as objective and
the musical as subjective. Why not have both be either objective or
subjective? Didn't she define certain music as mystical, and wouldn't
that relate positively to someone's mystical subconscious premises?
And if someone didn't have any such premises, then wouldn't the
emotional response be that of distaste?
It is a fact that we can distinguish philosophies in the music we
listen to. Rand certainly did. At the very least, we can
intellectually distinguish the fact that music either debases us or
elevates us in some sense. As a rule, if you repond negatively to
music intended to elevate (which would include most classical music),
then you have bad subconscious premises.
I wish people would just accept the fact that Ayn Rand could be wrong.
They have already rejected her theory of romantic love. Could it be
that that theory was the only thing wrong in her whole philosophy of
man? Are they afraid that if they continue looking for something wrong
then the whole philosophy will come tumbling down? Her inconsistency
in her musical theory has already been pointed out in this thread. She
stated that there was no objective criteria for music; on the other
hand, she berated others for their musical tastes, and analyzed
certain composers' music philosophically. I imagine that, given those
two opposing alternatives, one is going to be more correct than the
other. Don't you think?
--
Ken Gardner
> She stated that there was no objective criteria for music;
> on the other hand, she berated others for their musical tastes,
> and analyzed certain composers' music philosophically.
I don't know that she berated others for their musical tastes, but on
this issue -- objective criteria for great music -- although Rand was
definitely on the right track, the definitive authority is Aaron
Copeland and his book What to Listen for in Music. Highly recommended.
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Crosby" <pcr...@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Values
>
> Look up ... "Beethoven,"
If art expresses value judgments, and if value judgments are predicated on
sense of life, and if a composer has a malevolent sense of life, how can his
music be good art from the Objectivist point of view?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> Prefer the selected individual works, find out why, and develop your own
> possibly unique preference structure from there.
When you react positively to a piece of music, it means that there is
something in common with your sense of life and the composer's sense of
life. If the composer's sense of life is malevolent, so are you. (Or
premises need to be checked).
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> Then I think the real question is: should I sacrifice myself in order
> to understand and really like classical music? Even when I know
> classical music is more elaborated, more complex and rational, why is
> it wrong to like (to prefer) folk rock?
This is the eternal dilemma of many Objectivists: "Is it rational? Is it not
rational? Am I being rational? Get me a shrink!!"
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
> When you react positively to a piece of music, it means that there is
> something in common with your sense of life and the composer's sense of
> life.
Oh fie on that! It means you like the sound.
Bob Kolker
Thomas Clarke
> When you react positively to a piece of music, it means that there is
> something in common with your sense of life and the composer's sense of
> life.
So music is a form of ESP?
I thought Oism didn't cotton with ESP.
Maybe music is the 6th sense?
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Fred Weiss
h6jlrkn6dsdc...@4ax.com>...
> ...As a rule, if you repond negatively to
> music intended to elevate (which would include most classical music),
> then you have bad subconscious premises.
That's simply false. People can respond - or not respond - to certain
types of music, especially classical, for a whole variety of reasons
having nothing whatever to do with bad subconscious premises. For
example, they just may not understand it.
> I wish people would just accept the fact that Ayn Rand could be wrong.
Gee. What an amazing revelation. Do you think it's possible she could
also be right?
> They have already rejected her theory of romantic love.
Who is "they"?
Could it be
> that that theory was the only thing wrong in her whole philosophy of
> man?
And if you name something right would you say, "Could it be that that
theory was the only thing right in her whole philosophy of man?". Is
the fact that someone is wrong about something mean that they are
necessarily wrong about something else? Anymore than if they are right
about something that they are necessarily right about something else?
<Philosophical exercise of the day: relate this to our discussion of
certainty>.
Are they afraid that if they continue looking for something wrong
> then the whole philosophy will come tumbling down? Her inconsistency
> in her musical theory has already been pointed out in this thread. She
> stated that there was no objective criteria for music;
She stated that there was no *known* objective criteria for music - or
at least that she didn't know what it was. That's very different from
saying that there isn't one.
> on the other
> hand, she berated others for their musical tastes,...
Berated? When did she do that? About the only thing I can recall of
that nature was some contemptuous comments she made about modern
popular dances (circa, I guess late 1960's). She was in fact well
aware that some of her closest associates and friends did not totally
share her musical -or other -tastes (such as literary).
Malenoid, the hpo version of Don Quixote, is once again tilting at
windmills of his own imagining.
Fred Weiss
Charles Novins
> > When you react positively to a piece of music, it means that there is
> > something in common with your sense of life and the composer's sense of
> > life.
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VmLUc.40098$TI1.7263@attbi_s52...
> Oh fie on that! It means you like the sound.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I have never doubted that Acar is a character in the Wizard Of Oz, but I am
never certain whether he is Dorothy, Toto, or, as in this thread, the Straw
man.
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator says...
You 'don't know' it because you never witnessed it first-hand. On the
other hand, you may not have witnessed Africa first-hand either, yet
you know it's there. I personally have never gone to the moon to
verify that it is a sphere and not a flat dime-like disk hanging in
the sky from an invisible string.
--
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
What sound? Voice? Piano? Trombone?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
I'm Henry Morgan.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > When you react positively to a piece of music, it means that there is
> > something in common with your sense of life and the composer's sense of
> > life.
>
> So music is a form of ESP?
> I thought Oism didn't cotton with ESP.
>
> Maybe music is the 6th sense?
>
> Tom Clarke
Well, look at it this way: Art is a selective re-creation of reality
according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments. Metaphysical value
judgments are closely related to the artist's sense of life. (Surely they
can not pull in opposite directions!) If you enjoy the re-creation then you
are relating positively to what is being reflected in the re-creation (the
metaphysical value judgments) and to the associated sense of life.
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> Well, look at it this way: Art is a selective re-creation of reality
> according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments. Metaphysical value
> judgments are closely related to the artist's sense of life.
How does one observe a sense of life. It sounds like an opinion or value
judgement to me. One can measure Beethoven's height and the magnitude of
his hearing loss, but his sense of life? What the hell does that mean?
If it ain't empirical it is either math, religion, philosophy or nonsense.
Bob Kolker
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
>
It's a subjective thing.
Dan Murphy
00...@verizon.net>...
> Amol Kapila wrote:
> > I am studying how to apply Objectivism to my life and was wondering
> > what makes a value rational and a value objective. For example, if I
> > like classical music and a friend of mine dislikes it, is one of us
> > being irrational and is one objectively correct?
>
Music is a true passion of mine...so apparently I pulled a huge "Peter
Keating" by going into engineering...(sigh).
Music is an extremely direct way for a person to explain/transfer an
emotion from himself to another... or to preserve that emotion for his
own future reflection. Please don't misinterperet "emotion" as a
"feeling"...(I know somebody's going to recite the evils of "feeling"
to me).
If a person "likes" a piece of music, it probably means that 1) the
music has competently transferred to him an emotion that enjoyed
feeling 2) demonstrated a player's performance skills in a way that he
found interesting or amazing, or 3) reminded him of a time in his life
when he first heard the song.
1) is a compliment to the composer.
2) is a compliment to the performer.
3) is just kind of a fluke.
Keep in mind that lyrics, while part of music, is a part that the
brain can ignore if desired... I'm just talking about music.
If I'm justifiably angry about something, I might enjoy listening to
Korn, because the angry emotion I'm feeling corresponds with the angry
feeling of the music. It gives me a sense of agreement between my
emotion and the music.
It doesn't matter if the lyrics are in disagreement, or tangential to
my situation...my/our/your brain is capable of disregarding that if
necessary.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend might not want to be angry. She does not
want music to inspire/compliment that emotion in her. This does not
mean that one of us is objectively wrong or right about this
music...actually it means that we are both objectively right. I am
right in that I do like Korn at that moment, she is right that she
doesn't. If she pretended to like a certain music for me, that would
make her a second-hander, right?
Trying to label one type of music as objectively correct would be like
trying to name one occupation as objectively correct for everyone.
Try telling Howard Roark or John Galt that being an author is THE
correct profession, and everything else is irrational.
Dan
Robert J. Kolker
Dan Murphy wrote:
>
> Music is an extremely direct way for a person to explain/transfer an
> emotion from himself to another... or to preserve that emotion for his
> own future reflection.
Objectively speaking, music is sound or perceptable percussion.
Frankly, I do not understand what people get out of this subjective
crap. Sound is sound and some of it is noise. How can expressions which
are not matched or alligned to objects in the real world convey anything?
Bob Kolker
Charles Novins
news:bdff887a.04081...@posting.google.com...
> Music is a true passion of mine...so apparently I pulled a huge "Peter
> Keating" by going into engineering...(sigh).
CHARLES NOVINS:
Everyone has to eat (i.e., be productive) and passion does not equal talent,
much less superior talent, which is what you need if you expect to play
music *and* eat. FTR, I did the same thing, although I actually worked as a
musician for some years before re-routing into law.
DAN MURPHY:
> Music is an extremely direct way for a person to explain/transfer an
> emotion from himself to another... or to preserve that emotion for his
> own future reflection. Please don't misinterperet "emotion" as a
> "feeling"...(I know somebody's going to recite the evils of "feeling"
> to me).
>
> If a person "likes" a piece of music, it probably means that 1) the
> music has competently transferred to him an emotion that enjoyed
> feeling 2) demonstrated a player's performance skills in a way that he
> found interesting or amazing, or 3) reminded him of a time in his life
> when he first heard the song.
>
> 1) is a compliment to the composer.
> 2) is a compliment to the performer.
> 3) is just kind of a fluke.
>
> Keep in mind that lyrics, while part of music, is a part that the
> brain can ignore if desired... I'm just talking about music.
CHARLES NOVINS:
That's a good analysis. I find that emotions reliably follow facts, just as
Rand/Branden (not to mention Ellis) predicted. For example, I once held
Carl Sagan in high regard. Now that I understand who and what he was, my
emotions are quite the reverse. This has happened many times since
discovering Objectivism, and requires no effort whatsoever on my part. (I
once thought Robert Pirsig was the best thing since indoor plumbing. Now I
think he IS indoor plumbing. Ditto JFK and many others.)
Music is a bit different, however. I was a fan of pop-singer Amy Grant, who
is openly (and militantly) Christian, and thus axiomatically ignorant and
arguably evil. But....I still like the songs. Somehow, as Rand noted,
music takes a more direct route to the brain, and even though Grant's music
has lyrics which are openly objectionable, it doesn't seem to alter the
effects of the tonality itself.
DAN MURPHY:
[...]
> Trying to label one type of music as objectively correct would be like
> trying to name one occupation as objectively correct for everyone.
> Try telling Howard Roark or John Galt that being an author is THE
> correct profession, and everything else is irrational.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I agree, but don't care for the analogy you've used here.
Some professions ARE objectively bad these days (especially many state
jobs), whereas I think you are correct to surmise that there cannot be any
"evil" music per se.
That's not to say there cannot be any quality judgments about music at all.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Agent Cooper" <agentc...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:<000a01c485a0$d9f218c0$64fea8c0@
> cinci.rr.com>...
> >
> > It's a subjective thing.
>
> Do whatcha wanna do.
> I can't tell ya/who ta sock it to.
Rand would probably not think much of that sense of life.
Fred Weiss
lsVLnc...@comcast.com>...
> ... I was a fan of pop-singer Amy Grant, who
> is openly (and militantly) Christian, and thus axiomatically ignorant and
> arguably evil. But....I still like the songs. Somehow, as Rand noted,
> music takes a more direct route to the brain, and even though Grant's music
> has lyrics which are openly objectionable, it doesn't seem to alter the
> effects of the tonality itself.
Oh, absolutely. Religiously inspired music is among some of the most
beautiful ever written. Same in art (consider Michelangelo's "The
Pieta" or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel) or literature (consider
Quo Vadis).
Fred Weiss
Patrick Crosby
> Objectively speaking, music is sound or perceptable percussion.
speaking? And that the funky rhythms which come out of an old Eastern
buildings' Radiator heating system is music? Likewise the sounds
produced by a laundromat washer or dryer? Or are those sounds *not*
"perceptible percussion(s)?"
> Frankly, I do not understand what people get out of this subjective crap.
You mean Rachmaninoff?
> Sound is sound and some of it is noise.
By "noise," do you mean the sort of meaningless drivel that George W
Bush (aka King George the Cretin) utters out of his mouth?
> How can expressions which are not matched or alligned to objects in the r
> eal world convey anything?
Old Eastern apartment building radiators are definitely "objects in the
real world" it would seem to me. So, do you mean to say that those funky
rhythms they produce are "expressions"? Likewise for squeaky brakes, and
the "percussive sounds" you hear in a laundromat? Realize, these sounds
are all "meaningful." Some mean that "the heat is coming up." (Which of
you're really cold probably is music to your ears). Some mean that
clothes are being washed or dried. Others mean that big gas guzzling
automobiles are being stopped.
So, is this the "objective theory of Aesthetics?" I'm just trying
to understand you, here.
> Bob Kolker
Bob
Pj1oHc...@comcast.com>...
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Excellent respnse.
>
> I reiterate my frequent observation that Malenor is qualitatively different
> from other trolls that menace HPO because he has actual, demonstrable, and
> often detailed knowledge of the philosophy's literature.
>
> Yes, this makes his failure to undertsand it all the more egregious, but
> there is simply no comparison to the literally know-nothing trolls like
> Canteuso and Bobby V.
Yeah, why won't those lane-brains get a clue and shove off? And that
Cantueso guy! Who can spell that? He's foreign.
Someone has GOT to tell Skirvin, pronto!
.
.
.
.
.
cpt banjo
possible, but I've always liked the following quote from Leibniz:
"Music is the pleasure the human soul experiences from
counting without being aware that it is counting."
I was also surprised to read many years ago that Rand liked Duane
Eddy's music. Go figure.
Acar
Oops! Make that Frank Morgan, the Wizard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
One of my finest quotes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jerry Story
.194$9d6.4@attbi_s54>...
> Frankly, I do not understand what people get out of this subjective
> crap. Sound is sound and some of it is noise. How can expressions which
> are not matched or alligned to objects in the real world convey anything?
>
> Bob Kolker
I would tend to expect a mathematical-type guy like Kolker to have an
appreciation of the better kinds of music, music being at least partly
of a mathematical nature.
Rhythm is mathematical. Pure tones are more mathematical than chaotic
noise. When pure tones are mixed and have a recognizable mathematical
relationship, the result is musical and it is called a chord. When
there is a series of tones, each with a sufficiently recognizable
relationship with the previous tone, the result is musical.
There are probably a whole bunch of mathematical principles in music
not yet discovered, that some of us (perhaps not Kolker) automatically
respond to at a subconcious level.
As for taste in music corresponding to a sense of life, that sorta
seems intuitively likely, but SFAIK Ayn Rand did not present any
peer-reviewed scientific studies to prove that. And there might be a
problem with defining "sense of life" sufficiently so that such a
study is possible.
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>Charles Novins <taxs...@free-market.net> wrote in message news:<ndudnUy7Hb
>Pj1oHc...@comcast.com>...
>>
>> CHARLES NOVINS:
>> Excellent respnse.
Then why did you end your post the way you did?
>> I reiterate my frequent observation that Malenor is qualitatively different
>> from other trolls that menace HPO because he has actual, demonstrable, and
>> often detailed knowledge of the philosophy's literature.
I'm not here to troll, I'm here to defend Kant against Randroid trolls
who engage in outrageous attacks on his character and philosophy while
demonstrating that they know nothing about him.
>> Yes, this makes his failure to undertsand it all the more egregious, but
>> there is simply no comparison to the literally know-nothing trolls like
>> Canteuso and Bobby V.
Cantueso "knows stuff," but he's in over his head on this forum, so he
responds subjectively. And his political leanings are based on
anti-American tabloids from which he acquires all his news of the
world.
--
Robert J. Kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> Cantueso "knows stuff," but he's in over his head on this forum, so he
> responds subjectively. And his political leanings are based on
> anti-American tabloids from which he acquires all his news of the
> world.
The Brave Spaniard is typical Euro-trash.
Bob Kolker
>
Charles Novins
> Then why did you end your post the way you did?
CHARLES NOVINS:
I don't follow you (as usual, since you are chronically unclear.) I, OTOH,
am always clear. My post said, "Malenor may be wrong, but he knows the
topic." So I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.
MALENOR:
> I'm not here to troll, I'm here to defend Kant against Randroid trolls
> who engage in outrageous attacks on his character and philosophy while
> demonstrating that they know nothing about him.
CHARLES NOVINS:
1. Uh, Mal, Kant is DEAD, he requires little defense. You mean his
philosophy? Kant is taught in every university (to each and every one's
shame), while Rand is ignored at most. In sum, your "I'm here to defend
Kant" sounds like an excuse to be on unemployment. If you want to tell us
what you're actually trying to say, be my guest.
You're here because you're having a good time. Please with the "duty,"
please!
2. There isn't an Objectivist alive who "knows nothing" about Kant because,
as you know, Rand went on and on. Even if I charitably interpreted you to
be saying "misinformed," this too would be, at most, partially true. Rand
cited a great deal of Kant word-for-word. Your sole complaint could be that
something may have been taken out of proper context. Of course, in all your
word-avalanches, we never see the argument made that way.
MALENOR:
> Cantueso "knows stuff,"
CHARLES NOVINS:
I'll accept your allegation because it may be that he is just so utterly
poor at communicating; But for whatever reason, I can glean nothing from
his posts, nothing. He is just about the only character I've ever
killfiled, though the "general" is about to join him.
I never killfile anyone until I'm certain he's got nothing of any value to
say. That's Gordon-certain, not Fred-certain. In case anyone was
uncertain.
MALENOR:
but he's in over his head on this forum, so he responds subjectively. And
his political leanings are based on anti-American tabloids from which he
acquires all his news of the world.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I never understood the term "eurotrash" until I opened the dictionary and
saw his picture.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
>(consider Michelangelo's "The
> Pieta" or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel) or literature (consider
> Quo Vadis).
WOW! I'm impressed by your discoveries.
Randroid Terminator
.
.
They are ARI-approved discoveries, that's what makes them great.
--
R Lawrence
void.
Patrick Crosby <pcr...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>So now we have a list of names, albeit a list of rather obscure people.
>>But at least we have a list. Next, do you have any evidence that these
>>people hold the belief you claim, and is that evidence available for public
>>review (i.e., not some previously undocumented personal experience of
>>yours)?
>
>I have only the experience of my own personal discussions with these
>people, decades ago. But nonetheless, your claim that this experience of
>mine is "undocumented" is ludicrous on the face of it. I have documented
>it here.
I said "previously undocumented," not just "undocumented." You only claimed to
have these personal experiences when I questioned your claim that "many
followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical tastes different from
Rand's is 'irrational.'" You had never mentioned these experiences, or these
people, previously in any discussion on HPO, APO, or anywhere that I know of.
Moreover, the experiences you claim are apparently unverifiable. This
situation raises the suspicion that you simply made something up when you were
called on to defend an otherwise unjustified claim.
> If that's not good enough for you, I really don't give a flying
>fig.
In defense of a claim about what "many followers of Rand" believe, the
only people you can name as holding that belief are a handful you knew
"decades ago," and the only evidence at hand that they hold/held such a belief
(or are "followers of Rand," or even existed, for that matter) is your own
assertion. That definitely is not good enough for me, and I doubt it would be
good enough for any objective observer. If your claim were much more limited
-- something along the lines of, "Back in the 60s (or whenever it was) I knew
a few followers of Rand who believed ..." -- then perhaps a bare assertion of
personal experience would be sufficient.
> I really don't. I have nothing further to say about this most
>uninteresting question of yours. If you want really hard sociological
>data, go out and collect it yourself.
I have plenty of first-hand experience on the subject myself, and it is all
contrary to your claim. As to whether the question is uninteresting -- well,
you are the one who made the claim in the first place. If that claim isn't
interesting to you anymore now that someone presses you for some evidence to
back it up, I guess that tells us a bit about how you operate.
> For anyone else who has any doubts about my claim that there are
>people who actually think Ayn Rand's taste in music is something worth
>taking seriously, visit this site http://dismuke.org/aynrand/selections.html
It's an interesting site, full of trivia related to Rand and her favorite
music, plus some fun old recordings. However, it provides no evidence for your
claim that "many followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical
tastes different from Rand's is 'irrational.'"
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:43:06 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> .
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com>
> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: Values [music ]
> .
> >>(consider Michelangelo's "The
> >> Pieta" or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel) or literature (consider
> >> Quo Vadis).
> .
> >WOW! I'm impressed by your discoveries.
> .
> They are ARI-approved discoveries, that's what makes them great.
I am familiar with Michelangelo's Pieta, one of the finest pieces of
sculpture ever created, but I was not aware that Michelangelo also sculpted
something called "The Pieta". Was this a sequel"? May be Pieta 2?
Randroid Terminator
>> They are ARI-approved discoveries, that's what makes them great.
>I am familiar with Michelangelo's Pieta, one of the finest pieces of
>sculpture ever created, but I was not aware that Michelangelo also sculpted
>something called "The Pieta". Was this a sequel"? May be Pieta 2?
Sorry, I don't speak the Swedish.
--
MDHJWH
4f...@posting.google.com>...
> I have no idea whether an objective aesthetic theory of music is
> possible, but I've always liked the following quote from Leibniz:
Is there any necessity for an 'objectivist aesthetic theory of music'
Robert J. Kolker
MDHJWH wrote:
There is no necessity for any theory of aesthetics. We all have our
taste in our mouths. Beauty is purely subjective. You can no more
account for beauty than you can account for why one person likes vinilla
icecream and the other chocolate icecream.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there any necessity for an 'objectivist aesthetic theory of music'
>There is no necessity for any theory of aesthetics. We all have our
>taste in our mouths. Beauty is purely subjective. You can no more
>account for beauty than you can account for why one person likes vinilla
>icecream and the other chocolate icecream.
Bogus. It should be possible to determine the physical causes of these
aesthetic phenomena in the brain. Your materialist friends have been
telling me for years now that they are tracking down the physical
source of free-will and reason, and that the answer is forthcoming.
(It seems to always be forthcoming.) Why not aesthetic taste also?
--
Ralph Hertle
[snip]
> There is no necessity for any theory of aesthetics. We all have our
> taste in our mouths. Beauty is purely subjective. You can no more
> account for beauty than you can account for why one person likes vinilla
> icecream and the other chocolate icecream.
>
> Bob Kolker
Robert:
You speak for yourself. Happiness is apparently not a value for you.
What you say is pure Empiricist and Pragmatist dogma. Those philosophies
have no sub-science of ethics. Without ethics there are no possible
concepts regarding what the goals and purposes of individual human life
may be, and there are no ideals or concepts of the good of life. One
could go so far as to say that Empiricism and Pragmatism cannot project
any concept of what the value of individual human life is or what the
values are that the individual seeks to acquire in order to achieve a
prosperous and happy life.
A value, according to Ayn Rand, is what one acts to gain and or keep in
order to create and sustain a happy life.
To the Empiricist or Pragmatist there are no ideals, no concept of what
an ideal human life is, and no models of same. To them there is nothing
toward which one may act, and no benefit to be gained by any action. To
them, in popular parlance, 'anything goes'.
Your statement, "There is no necessity for any theory of aesthetics," is
true of those philosophies. If you are an advocate of those philosophies
the statement is also true of you.
Art to you is raw unselective sense perceptions, and it no doubt makes
no difference to you whether one stimuli or another is provided to you.
Everything to you is anti-conceptual perceptual noise. All experience to
you is meaningless and life is hopelessness.
Is that a fact? Or not?
Ralph Hertle
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Values
>
> It's an interesting site, full of trivia related to Rand and her favorite
> music, plus some fun old recordings. However, it provides no evidence for
your
> claim that "many followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical
> tastes different from Rand's is 'irrational.'"
Rand disparaged the "sense of life" of people who liked or produced certain
kinds of art. Whether she held that sense of life is in any way related to
rationality I don't know. I have seen reports of people who were afraid to
admit their artistic and literary preferences for fear of being judged
"irrational".
Ralph Hertle
I should have added something that Ayn Rand said, and I'll paraphrase
the ideas.
Ethics in philosophy is the basis for esthetics. Ethics defines what the
good is of human life in broad or universal terms. Esthetics is based in
ethics, and esthetics theoretically explains what the more specific
values of life are and how they may be created, understood, and
appreciated.
Art is based in esthetics, and that provides that basic theory for the
conceptualization of the values to be shown in art. Art shows in
particular perceptible concrete examples what those values are. Art
provides the appreciator with the models that directly show and or imply
certain concepts of ideal life. The artist says or, especially, implies
the ideals of life or qualities of life that he or she imagines, and the
artist enables the patron to directly experience the imagined ideals
perceptibly, emotionally, and conceptually.
To the Empiricist or Pragmatist there is no Ethics, no ideals, no
esthetics, and no art. Only destruction and grab.
Objectivism has a highly developed and sophisticated ethics that
explains what the good of individual life is, and its esthetics is
likewise highly developed. The type of art, Romantic Realism, that is
accordingly caused is totally value and happiness oriented.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Charles Novins
news:B02Wc.166865$8_6.63750@attbi_s04...
> There is no necessity for any theory of aesthetics. We all have our
> taste in our mouths. Beauty is purely subjective. You can no more
> account for beauty than you can account for why one person likes vinilla
> icecream and the other chocolate icecream.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Try tuning your piano so that the middle "A" note vibrates at 442 kHz. Then
see your audience dwindle. You will see that there is a rigid, objectively
identifiable basis for a great deal of art. Perhaps, not all of it.
robert j. kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> To the Empiricist or Pragmatist there is no Ethics, no ideals, no
> esthetics, and no art. Only destruction and grab.
utter balderdash. I have an ethical principle. It goes like this: do not
do to someone else what you would not want them to do to you. Of course
if someone agresses against you, all bets are off.
>
> Objectivism has a highly developed and sophisticated ethics that
> explains what the good of individual life is, and its esthetics is
> likewise highly developed. The type of art, Romantic Realism, that is
> accordingly caused is totally value and happiness oriented.
The good of my individual life consists of the fact that I am having
fun. What more do I need? And since I do not subscribe to the
Categorical Imperitive, I could not care less what constitutes your good
life or anyone else's.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Charles Novins wrote:
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Try tuning your piano so that the middle "A" note vibrates at 442 kHz. Then
> see your audience dwindle. You will see that there is a rigid, objectively
> identifiable basis for a great deal of art. Perhaps, not all of it.
I play, when I play for my own enjoyment.
Bob Kolker
>
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
> Bogus. It should be possible to determine the physical causes of these
> aesthetic phenomena in the brain.
Who is bogus? Produce the theory and we can talk about it. So far no
such theory exists, nor is there any evidence that such a theory is
possible (thus far, anyway). The only proof to your assertio de rectum
is the theory. So where is it?
Claims are cheap and many. Factual productions few and dear.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Art to you is raw unselective sense perceptions, and it no doubt makes
> no difference to you whether one stimuli or another is provided to you.
> Everything to you is anti-conceptual perceptual noise. All experience to
> you is meaningless and life is hopelessness.
Not so in the short run, very true in the long run. In the long run we
will all be dead. There is no chance of getting out of life alive.
Experience is very meaningful. One learns from it. But that does not
change the fact the beauty is subjective.
The problem with you, kiddo, is that you are soooo serious. Lighten up.
Enjoy the moment for you only have a finite number of them. If you live
to be 80 (unlikely) you will have 29,220 days (0r 701,280 hours =
42,076,800 minutes) for your very own, and then you will croak and your
flesh will begin to rot. The short story is that there is no long run.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
void.
Patrick Crosby <pcr...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>So now we have a list of names, albeit a list of rather obscure people.
>>But at least we have a list. Next, do you have any evidence that these
>>people hold the belief you claim, and is that evidence available for public
>>review (i.e., not some previously undocumented personal experience of
>>yours)?
>
>I have only the experience of my own personal discussions with these
>people, decades ago. But nonetheless, your claim that this experience of
>mine is "undocumented" is ludicrous on the face of it. I have documented
>it here.
I said "previously undocumented," not just "undocumented." You only claimed to
have these personal experiences when I questioned your claim that "many
followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical tastes different from
It's an interesting site, full of trivia related to Rand and her favorite
music, plus some fun old recordings. However, it provides no evidence for your
claim that "many followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical
tastes different from Rand's is 'irrational.'"
--
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>Bob Kolker
Plant more typos in your posting, "Bob," and maybe you can manage to
fool a few lamers here.
--
Ken Gardner
> I originally sent this a week ago, but apparently it disappeared into the
> void.
FYI, maybe you didn't see your post the last time, but I certainly did.
I almost posted my standard "Please Don't Feed the Trolls" sign, but
enjoyed your response so much that I decided to give you a pass. :)
[...]
Ken
Ralph Hertle
>
>
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>> To the Empiricist or Pragmatist there is no Ethics, no ideals, no
>> esthetics, and no art. Only destruction and grab.
>
>
> utter balderdash. I have an ethical principle. It goes like this: do not
> do to someone else what you would not want them to do to you. Of course
> if someone agresses against you, all bets are off.
>
That isn't an example of an Empiricist or Pragmatist ethics, however,
they don't have an ethics anyway. There is nothing to discuss for they
don't have any ideas on the subject.
Your ethical principle is more like the Revolutionary American flag
idea, "Don't Tread on Me."
For an integrated concept of ethics read Ayn Rand. She developed the
concepts, of which you give some lively, but stupidly phrased, examples.
>
>>
>> Objectivism has a highly developed and sophisticated ethics that
>> explains what the good of individual life is, and its esthetics is
>> likewise highly developed. The type of art, Romantic Realism, that is
>> accordingly caused is totally value and happiness oriented.
>
>
> The good of my individual life consists of the fact that I am having
> fun.
A child's notion of the good life. For an adult that is the consumptive
life of play. Play alone may lead to a state of low self esteem, and
that would ultimately be no fun. You would need more productivity and
psychological efficacy.
What more do I need? And since I do not subscribe to the
> Categorical Imperitive,
That means nothing in the context of esthetics, art, and music.
I could not care less what constitutes your good
> life or anyone else's.
>
> Bob Kolker
That's obvious. Do you have any friends?
Ralph Hertle
Fred Weiss
cinci.rr.com>...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Values
>
>
> >
> > It's an interesting site, full of trivia related to Rand and her favorite
> > music, plus some fun old recordings. However, it provides no evidence for
> your
> > claim that "many followers of Rand really do believe that to have musical
> > tastes different from Rand's is 'irrational.'"
>
> Rand disparaged the "sense of life" of people who liked or produced certain
> kinds of art. Whether she held that sense of life is in any way related to
> rationality I don't know.
If you don't know, then why bring it up - other than to do your usual,
which is blather? And once again, why should any actual knowledge of
her position taint your pronouncements about her?
> I have seen reports of people who were afraid to
> admit their artistic and literary preferences for fear of being judged
> "irrational".
I have seen reports of people who were afraid of mice.
Apparently you haven't seen reports of people who knew her extremely
well over many years who had different artistic and literary
preferences than she did and which they had no hesitation to tell her.
Leonard Peikoff and Mary Ann Sures for example. She obviously didn't
think they were irrational.
I happen to know a number of Objectivists, including a couple of
prominent ones who don't like Victor Hugo. Ayn Rand (not to mention,
me) would have found that almost incomprehensible.
She loved Mickey Spillane and thought he was one of the best writers
in the 20th Cent. I don't like Mickey Spillane and I think there are
many better writers than him - even in the 20th Cent. There, I've put
it on the record. Check back in a few weeks and we'll find out if I'm
excommunicated.
You're a moron.
Fred Weiss
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Values
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:<005e01c48860$563a0f20$64fea8c0@
> cinci.rr.com>...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com>
> > Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: Values
> >
>
> She loved Mickey Spillane and thought he was one of the best writers
> in the 20th Cent. I don't like Mickey Spillane and I think there are
> many better writers than him - even in the 20th Cent. There, I've put
> it on the record. Check back in a few weeks and we'll find out if I'm
> excommunicated.
>
> You're a moron.
Maybe she was right. Maybe you are irrational.
Dan Murphy
.194$9d6.4@attbi_s54>...
> Dan Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> > Music is an extremely direct way for a person to explain/transfer an
> > emotion from himself to another... or to preserve that emotion for his
> > own future reflection.
>
> Objectively speaking, music is sound or perceptable percussion.
>
> Frankly, I do not understand what people get out of this subjective
> crap. Sound is sound and some of it is noise. How can expressions which
> are not matched or alligned to objects in the real world convey anything?
>
> Bob Kolker
Bob,
Oh brother.
You could say, "Objectively speaking, man is replicating carbon-based
matter."
Duh.
Is it anything more?
What color is your car? Do you like the color of your car? Do you
look at it and say, "Oh, that's such-and-such a frequency of energy
that passes through my eye to cause nuerons to be routed through
certain pathways in my brain."?
Or do you say, "Ah blue...I like blue." Do you wonder how the color
blue is matched or alligned to objects in the real world every time
you notice that you like blue...or even once for that matter?
The color red conveys danger, yellow caution, blue tranquility...at
least in our culture anyway. If you refuse to acknowledge this based
on the presumption that its not matched or aligned to objects in the
real world, then you'll be in a hell of a lot of trouble if you ever
wander into a construction zone.
Certain sounds make certain people react in different ways. Adding
the number "2" to different numbers will produce different results.
Does this make it subjective...I guess so...does it make it untrue or
unimportant. I hardly think so.
In casual respect,
Dan
Even human beings would be absolutely predictable if we knew all the
variables.
Jerry Story
> taste in our mouths. Beauty is purely subjective. You can no more
> account for beauty than you can account for why one person likes vinilla
> icecream and the other chocolate icecream.
>
> Bob Kolker
Ayn Rand explains aesthetics in "Romantic Manifesto".
Shelton explains beauty.
Anopsology explains taste.
robert j. kolker
> Anopsology explains taste.
Produce a series of experiments that show all preferences in foods is a
function of physiology alone. There is the matter of prior experience in
what is eaten. Have you ever heard of "acquired tastes". One cannot
acquire a taste for what one has never eaten.
Bob Kolker
Bob
NsObvc...@comcast.com>...
> "Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p76di098epooc84r7...@4ax.com...
> > Then why did you end your post the way you did?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I don't follow you (as usual, since you are chronically unclear.) I, OTOH,
> am always clear.
It's because you use windex and lint-free paper towels on your mirror.
> My post said, "Malenor may be wrong, but he knows the
> topic." So I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.
I suspect he's wondering why, in light of your praise of his "actual,
demonstrable, and often detailed knowledge of the philosophy's
literature", you still consider him a troll.
You don't have to answer, because we already know.
.
.
.
Charles Novins
> > I don't follow you (as usual, since you are chronically unclear.) I,
OTOH,
> > am always clear.
"Bob" <bobv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa2332b1.0408...@posting.google.com...
> It's because you use windex and lint-free paper towels on your mirror.
CHARLES NOVINS:
> > My post said, "Malenor may be wrong, but he knows the
> > topic." So I don't have the slightest idea what you're asking.
BOB VOGEL:
> I suspect he's wondering why, in light of your praise of his "actual,
> demonstrable, and often detailed knowledge of the philosophy's
> literature", you still consider him a troll.
CHARLES NOVINS:
That's right, you "suspect" what he might be saying, and that's because you
read it too and don't know. Thanks for underscoring my point.
Plus, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The fact that you cannot grasp
larger philosophical concepts (as Malenor can) does not mean you don't
communicate clearly (which you do, and Malenor cannot.)
I wish everything could be simple for you, but I'm afraid it cannot.
Robert J. Kolker
Jerry Story wrote:
> There are probably a whole bunch of mathematical principles in music
> not yet discovered, that some of us (perhaps not Kolker) automatically
When these marvelous things are discovered, you will write and tell us
about them, won't you? There's a good fellow.
> respond to at a subconcious level.
I don't have a sub-conscious level.
Bob Kolker
>
> As for taste in music corresponding to a sense of life, that sorta
> seems intuitively likely, but SFAIK Ayn Rand did not present any
> peer-reviewed scientific studies to prove that. And there might be a
> problem with defining "sense of life" sufficiently so that such a
> study is possible.
If it ain't empirical it is either math, philosophy, religion or nonsense.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
wrote:
>Charles Novins <taxs...@free-market.net> wrote in message news:<LvudnXuO2p
>NsObvc...@comcast.com>...
>> "Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:p76di098epooc84r7...@4ax.com...
>> > Then why did you end your post the way you did?
>> CHARLES NOVINS:
>> I don't follow you (as usual, since you are chronically unclear.) I, OTOH,
>> am always clear.
There's also a difference between just being clear, and being nasty.
You are clearly nasty, a nasty little usenet bully.
--
Charles Novins
> >> I don't follow you (as usual, since you are chronically unclear.) I,
OTOH,
> >> am always clear.
"Randroid Terminator" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gvdni0h1vj3d1jbg5...@4ax.com...
> There's also a difference between just being clear, and being nasty.
> You are clearly nasty, a nasty little usenet bully.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You must be joking. You're like the kid who chooses (and I mean *chooses*)
to go to the Jewish school so he can run around trying to convince everyone
that the Nazi's had it right. Then you get berated and plead victimhood.
Ken Gardner
> You must be joking. You're like the kid who chooses (and I mean *chooses*)
> to go to the Jewish school so he can run around trying to convince everyone
> that the Nazi's had it right. Then you get berated and plead victimhood.
[I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy...]
Ken
Liberator Veritatis
On the contrary, it is a lot more like going to the Nazi school to
convince them that they are wrong about the Jews. Most people think
that the Jews were unjustly persecuted by the Nazi's, ridiculously
characterized by them as being some sort of cabal of international
criminals. Similarly, most people strongly disagree with not only
Rand's evaluation of Kant but her characterization of what he actually
thought. The Jews didn't try to practice genocide on the Germans,
the way the Nazis did on them. Similarly, Kant much more passively
offered his well-educated, professional opinion on things rather than
sit around and bash those he strongly disagreed with the way Rand has
done to him.
--
Liberator Veritatis