> It has always been the job of priests to establish, protect, and interpret > the > canon - or, actually, every priesthood has its own, and it's one Rand's > virtues that she is oblivious to them all, unless, as she did with > Aristotle, > she finds something that makes sense to her. >
I am not sure this is (1) true, or (2) relevant. Viz 1: There have always been great libraries, so it is simply not correct to think that the canon = religiously protected/sanctioned documents, nor that the canon is not contested, or contestable as a matter of scholarly 'intramural' discussion. Viz 2: if one is oblivious to a tradition it is very difficult for me to see how one can engage in any kind of rigorous discussion, debate, or argument. After all, *rejecting* the canon is not the same as being *oblivious* to it. one can be oblivious *and* agree with the canon, just as one can be well versed *and* disagree with it. What is important, I take it, is how well grounded one's reasons are for one's positions. To me, the question is one of productiveness: who would I prefer to discuss matters with? Again, simply because something "makes sense to her" does not make it compelling, right-headed, or even interesting. Why share something that merely 'makes sense to me' if you don't think it would 'make sense to everyone'? and if it could possibly make sense to others, why not actually present it in a full-blown, persuasive argument, which is sensitive to tradition and history? On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's > metaphysical value judgments" (Ayn Rand) > > >That definition fits any art at all, except it uses the term metaphysical, > rather odd for an Objectivist. (William Conger) > > > ............................................................................. > ................................................................. > > Does it really fit *any* art at all? Aren't there some artists who are > more > interested creating a new reality, rather than re-creating what is already > there? Haven't some of them succeeded? > > Her defintion may have problems, but what is admirable is that at least > she > presents one and sticks to it. > > Does anyone else here have a definition of art that he would like to > present? > > Regarding the term 'metaphysical', Rand presents Objectivism as one among > many different kinds of metaphysics. She may advocate it as the best, but > she > still allows that others. indeed, most of humanity, prefers something > else. > > >It seems to me that she is rather oblivious to what actually constitutes > the > canon (Imago Asthetik) > > Correct. > > It has always been the job of priests to establish, protect, and interpret > the > canon - or, actually, every priesthood has its own, and it's one Rand's > virtues that she is oblivious to them all, unless, as she did with > Aristotle, > she finds something that makes sense to her. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9r2edGl0d43nsUC9YN7J8 > VM2LTpTT6Ezel1058GLQRc8bhAXYk/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9r2edGl0d43nsUC9YN7J8%0AVM2LTpTT6Ezel1058GLQRc8bhAXYk/>
