Your ongoing demand for a valid argument rather than a petitio principii
reminds me that a valid argument regarding the
failures of Rand's aesthetic philosophy has yet to be made here, Mr. Imago
Asthetik.
Your contention that Rand "cannot defend such an assertion (the subjugation of
'sense of life' to philsophy) in light of her
other commitments" has rested, so far, only on the fact that you "have seen no
evidence that she can defend such a
hierarchy", and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As Rand made clear in her brief discussion of various authors, she raises
several distinct issues regarding literature.
Do I like to read it? Does it express a 'sense of life' similar to my own? Is
it good literature? Does it conform to
metaphysical truth?. For Rand, all of these questions can be answered
separately , so that, yes, she well might consider "Death of Ivan Ilyich" to
be structurally perfect, despite all her other objections to it. (note: I
wouldn't make such a judgment, but she would)
I have noted that in this book, Rand seems far more interested in 'sense of
life' than anything else. She claims that
esthetics is a science and that her metaphysics are true, and regretfully she
offers us no evidence or argument to support either claim.
But give her a break, Mr. Asthetik! , even if she is the bjte noire of modern
academia.
This is only one, short book.
Let's examine what she does say, rather than condemn her for what she
doesn't.
I am sure that she would applaud your enthusiasm for rational discussion, and
abhorrence of petitio principii , but everything cannot be explained all at
once.
BTW , could you give us an example, Mr. Imago Asthetik, of when you when
changed your mind after reading material on art and philosophy? Was that
change ever an aesthetic re-evaluation of something? Perhaps you were speaking
of an different kind of mind change?
*************************
>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?
____________________________________________________________
Click to learn how to become a world famous writer or poet.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUALilYLs58Bf1C5wKVNAtO1
2cV9uG3RDn198mrySKW9KrFrgv7I8/
