Mr Miller,
Changing the subject will not alter my request. I sincerely would like to
understand why you think that there can be no rational discussion of
aesthetic quality, or why you think that argument is unimportant. I am also
eager to hear what issues Rand raises that are important. What makes her
philosophy 'objective/objectivistic'?
In any case, I am not being any harder on Rand than I am on you, or any
harder than I would be on any other philosopher. My responses have nothing
to do with her standing in the Academe. I simply think she is a poor
thinker.
As for a valid argument, I gave a reductio ad absurdum of Rands Position. I
believe it to be valid. To be pedantic, we can use the following line by
line analysis:
1. Art expresses a sense of life (Premise from Rand [PRF])
[For all X such that IF X is art, Then X expresses a form of life]
2. Philosophy is a higher, autonomous discipline that supervenes upon art
(PRF)
[For all P such that IF P is philosophy, THEN P is a metadiscourse*]
3. Some senses of life are better -- to wit, the best is Objectivist
(PRF)
[For some X and Some Y, X is more valuable than Y, and X is
Objectivist]
*By metadiscourse, I mean a determination of the truth-conditions of
functions (predicates), like 'is more valuable than'. Objectivism is one
such metadiscourse.
Subconclusions:
- Philosophy is a discipline that evaluates (from 2 & 3)
- Evaluation is based upon the sense of life an artwork expresses (from
3)
Now, from the subconclusions, it follows that philosophy also expresses a
sense of life, otherwise it could not evaluate [from premise 2 and
Subconclusion 2), for it would have no principles of evaluation. However,
if philosophy expresses a sense of life, then it is not autonomous, not
independent of a sense of life, and certainly not higher than a sense of
life. And this yields a contradiction: By premise 2, philosophy is
indpendendent of a sense of life, even as it entails that philosophy cannot
be independent. P implies not-P, which is impossible. QED.
To be sure, there are a number of ways to avoid the contradiction -- one
being to relativize the whole framework, such that all discussions are
inherently personal, subjectivistic, and non-communicable; another being to
universalize the 'sense of life' so that every work expresses the same
sense, though from a unique perspective (monadology). There are undoubtedly
others.
All this to say, then, that I have in fact provided a valid argument. My
claim concerning evidence had everything to do with the fact that I have
seen no evidence of a defence against it. To be sure, you are right to
point out that a lack of evidence does not entail inexistence, but that does
not affect my substantive claim. If Rand has a counterargument or a
counterargument can be produced on her behalf, then please do so.
In any case, claiming that art expresses a sense of life is hardly an
original idea, and I can find it in almost every piece of German aesthetics
since Baumgarten (and through to Gadamer). What distinguishes Rand from
these thinkers (excluding for the moment bad argument)?
There have been a great number of writers who have changed my mind on
aesthetic/artistic matters. A number of Adornos writings have changed the
way I look at art. I remember the lists brief discussion of Jay Bernsteins
discussion of Dutch painting, which changed my mind about it. Greenbergs
New Lacoon prompted me to rethink several points.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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
