What makes sense to one is hard enough to express.
So why even waste time trying to please every one else.
mando
On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:28 AM, imago Asthetik wrote:
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/>
