Who said anything about pleasing anyone else Mr Baeza? And when was 'Right' every easy?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, armando baeza <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/>
