> Rand clearly, and repeatedly, places philosophy above 'sense of life', so
she has plenty room to separate ideology from rational discourse, and > critique themes that present the "strength of the worker, and the beauty of collective life" Yes I understand that Rand asserts this. My contention is rather that she cannot defend such an assertion in light of her other commitments. More modestly said, I have seen no evidence that she can defend such a hierarchy, and I doubt whether such an ordering is even coherent, given her psycho-epistemology. To reformulate my question (and objection), if each of us has a sense of life, then every action or argument, every work of art and ever word of philosophy can be traced back to it as an expression of that very sense of life. Were we Heideggerians, we might speak of a Stimmung (a mood, or an attunement to the world that envelopes us). If this is true, then placing philosophy is a dominant position simply expresses another sense of life. Hence, unlike the hermeneutical character of mood in Heidegger, Rands sense of life remains utterly subjective. To be sure, we may share a sense of life, but the grounds for our solidarity are not 'rational'. Now, should we accept my claim, then it further follows that the grounds or criteria for differentiating among 'senses of life' are neither objective nor open to further investigation. They are brute facts established by fiat. My charge of elitism thus arises from this petitio principii: other senses of life are worse because they are not mine, and mine involves the exaltation of an Individual being and his or her striving, rather than anything else. This is simply not an argument, let alone a sound or valid one. On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > As I noted, Rand seems less interested in the history of art, than in > the > 'sense of life' apparent in each work. > > So she is more interested in how Cubism might reflect a damaged 'sense > of > life', than in how it might be considered a triumph of innovation. > > And I realize that this preference was also reflected by Nazi ideology > regarding 'decadent art'. > > But Rand clearly, and repeatedly, places philosophy above 'sense of life', > so > she has plenty room to separate ideology from rational discourse, and > critique > themes that present the "strength of the worker, and the beauty of > collective life" > > As should we all, by allowing that an idea is not necessarily bad just > because it was exploited by an abhorrent regime. > > Does Rand preach "an impoverished discourse of elitism" ? > > That might be relevant to "Atlas Shrugged", but I've yet to find the issue > of > elitism at all in "The Romantic Manifesto". > > > > > >All this talk of a 'sense of life' makes me uneasy. It sounds too much > like > a Weltanschauung, and therefore leaves no room to separate ideology from > rational discourse, let alone allow for any form of discussion or debate. > In fact, it sounds vaguely fascist (See Klemperer's book, Lingua Tertii > Imperii <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Tertii_Imperii>). > It strikes me that Rand is less developing an aesthetics, or a theory of > criticism, or even a theory of taste, as she is preaching an impoverished > discourse of elitism, not unlike the kinds one finds in all totalitarian > propoganda. How could this be interesting? How is her 'sense of life' > different from the idealised 'sense of life' of socialist realism, of the > strength of the worker, and the beauty of collective life? Where is the > distinguishing feature between Fascism, Socialism, and Capitalism, > according > to Rand? (Imago Asthetik) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Shop from a huge selection of custom labels. Click now! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ3xvk8rY59UBqGDz3Qizqqs > 7iewey4S48BEVIAIOlU5Pls71HWOM/
