I sincerely do not understand your position Mr Miller. I do not mean to imply something negative, but how could incoherence be better for you than something you find worthless? Would you honestly prefer something that makes no sense to anyone (and hence cannot have any legitimate, non contradictory use) to something you find wrong? Could you please explain how such a preference makes sense? Again, without wishing to sound condescending, it seems to me that your view of philosophy and aesthetics equals a matter of singing "hey nonny nonny": some sing the refrain in a way you find pleasing, some do not. Ultimately, however, the meaning is not important. But surely that cannot be the case, for to belief that is to make argumentation superfluous, to make reason otiose, and to render any kind of conversation absurd. Surely you don't believe that -- do you? Why would one even read material on art and philosophy if one is not prepared to be convinced by argument, to change ones mind. Why would one be interested in simply re-confirming one's intuitions in every book? Saying that the value of a philosophical discussion depends on the value of what it discusses is, however, a tautology. Of course arguments about angels and pins is not important -- unless angels are important. The question of importance, however, is how one makes the case that something is valuable. One cannot simply say, X is valuable. One has to argue that it is so. I believe this satisfies what you called, 'raising relevant issues.' Every good piece of philosophy begins with this step, and tries to justify why it begins with certain issues. Without this initial argument, there is no philosophy; there is no valid argument, only a petitio principii.
I also do not understand why you think that art should follow philosophy. Good art generates good philosophy. Bad art can also generate good philosophy. And mediocre work tends to generate bad philosophy. But great philosophy does not generate good art. Nor should it. I do not understand why one would hope that one day good art would satisfy Rands philosophy. That seems like a very strange claim to me. I ask all this out of an honest desire to understand. What issues does Rand raise that are important? How do you understand the concept of value? Do you believe that argument is important? Why do you think that the aesthetic quality of an artwork cannot be rationally explained? This last issue I find specially perplexing. It seems to me that we discuss this rationally all the time, and explain it rationally too. A diagreement does not make something irrational, does it? On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm sure that Rand would agree with you, Imago Asthetik, that "an > incoherent > or contradictory position is worse than one someone simply disagrees with", > > But I don't, at least, regarding aesthetics, where the most important > issue, > aesthetic quality, cannot be rationally explained. > > So I'm more interested in discussion that raises relevent issues, rather > than > attempts to thoroughly resolve them, and would expect different language > and > different theories to accompany different genres of art. > > And, ultimately, the value of the discussion to me depends upon the value > of > the art (rather than vice versa) > > This is why I find Goodman's explication of Warhol to be worthless, > regardless > of how philosophic you may find it. > > Unfortunately, I have yet to find anything of value made by > self-identified > Randians (including Ayn herself) -- but perhaps some will eventually come > along. I'm sure that Ayn would have been a big fan of Jacque Louis David > (clarity, idealism, and drama -- well, perhaps without the connection to > left > wing politics) , and there's no reason why someone can't paint like him > today. > > I was just surfing some more objectivist websites yesterday. These > enthusiastic people are not stupid, insensitive, or uneducated -- and > eventually a great artist is going to serve them. > > > ******************** > > >I am not sure I understand your response (below), Mr Miller. Surely, an > incoherent or contradictory position is worse than one someone simply > disagrees with, or one that turns out to be materially false. In point of > fact, if Rands proposal for aesthetics entails contradiction or > incoherence, > it is hard for me to see how it has any merit at all. One might as well > say, that squared circles work well enough (are serviceable, as another > lister might say) to convey some idea that resides at the core of ones > theory of geometry. The very thought makes no sense. > >From a theoretical perspective incoherence or contradiction annihilates > theory. And so Rand cannot be considered in the same circle of thinkers as > Goodman, Aristotle, Ranciere, or any of the other thinkers this list has > discussed with some measure of depth. That something works for her is not > a > criterion for determining its merit or its truth. > > In any case, it seem to me that Rands disagreements with certain artworks > have absolutely nothing to do with them qua artworks, nor are they > aesthetic. She disagrees on ideological grounds. Bad metaphysics. Arouses > sympathy for those who do not work hard enough. Expresses broken sense of > life. etc. Whatever the backwardness of Tolstoys nationalism and > Religiosity, for instance, the Death of Ivan Ilyich is structurally > perfect. > Quite literally perfect. What difference could it make, therefore, to say > that it does not exalt an individual's effort? Where does such a criterion > come from, and what could it possibly have to do with the work being > considered? How could such a claim be objective? Whither Rands > Objectivism? There seems to be little more than a pretence to philosophy, > rather than anything philosophical. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to find affordable LASIK eye surgery. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVEgZxgUbwVuTLxhqdv6Le44 > D8VERpyHOzYJOVwkCkwtzCVW8JKko/
