RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 - 4:01am

Link

Edit

Wow. What a great pleasure it was to read your essay on Contemplation. It is a fantastic experience to glance at great aesthetic concepts from the past in which you have manage to transport to us with all their living qualities intact. Thank you.

You comment that: "Pleasure supervenes on the end of the achievement of an action" based on Aristotle's concept, hit home for me. This makes me think about the difference between passively and indiscriminately watching T.V. or taking the time and effort to attend an art event. The art event demands ones participation as an appreciator and after having done the effort take in the art it then becomes a very emotionally gratifying experience. But I thought of what a let down it is to take that same effort for something nihilistic. But then coming back to Aristotle's quote, "appetites… for base objects culpable" makes me smile at that he had his bases covered.

It was very interesting how you are tracing the differing interpretations of Aristotle's works through time to give substance to Rand's comment about the Aristotlian sense of life of the 19th Century. You do both credit.

You have obviously put a lot of thought into the parallels between Rand and Wilde and I clearly see the connection that both see contemplation as the end point of art, and not utilitarian. I am shy to comment further on your quotes of Wilde about "spiritually informed perception" and "the full comprehension and contemplation of the Beautiful"; they, for me, have a slight arrogant "ring" to them, as if takes a special skill or a tremendous amount of effort to acquire this knowledge. I am not being very clear here but there is something I find very modest about Rand in her aesthetics, she often brings things down to the universal nature of humanity that gives us the sense that anyone potentially can be heroic. For example when she talks about humanities need of art she connects it to man's means of survival, the survival of his consciousness. And she goes on to discuss how process of art goes from the artist's concept to the concrete of the artwork to the viewer's perception of the art/concrete, and then to their "contemplation" or the gleaning of the artist's concept. And this process gives rise for us, humanity, to have confidence in our imaginations or visions of tomorrow--it let's us know that yes we can turn our visions into reality. My apologies, I think I have gone far from the point of contemplation which you have clearly made.

I am glad you had sharp words for Cantor, the Misesians are going into aesthetics!? I sense that the issue of utilitarianism and hedonism is bigger than my current knowledge of history allows for, but I think it is great that you are taking both those perspectives back to the drawing board and that you have your black ink and are blocking out a better plan; or is it an elevation?

Post 1

Tuesday, December 3, 2002 - 6:00am

Link

Edit

Michael,

Thanks for the comments! I have included the link below to show at least one clear example of how Cantor is applying Misesian economics to literature. Some points I agree on, but it really bothers me to read that art is primarily of value because it demonstrates the brilliance of capitalist culture. This is a utilitarian argument that says nothing of the artist's sense of life let alone contemplation. HMM. I think Rand would have found more in common with Wilde than with von Mises regarding art.

http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/aen21_1_1.pdf

The quotes you attribute to Wilde are actually from Ruskin. Ruskin was "spiritually informed" by Christianity early in his life. Later on he was informed by "insanity". Literally. For the most part I find Ruskin abominable, it is only this single aspect of his work that I found worthy of praise. He appropriated a bit of Aristotelianism for the purpose of art criticism. As far as Ruskin's ideas on economics, loathsome:-) Ruskin takes the trophy for first rate enemy of capitalism in Mises' "Anti-Capitalist Mentality". I am not interested in Ruskin's economics though. You have to remember the quotes are from the XIXth century Victorian period when there was such thing as a "standard" in art. There was propriety, decency, virtue, and a whole lot of concepts unfamiliar or out of use for us today.

Post 2

Friday, December 6, 2002 - 3:55am

Link

Edit

Hi Anthony,

I greatly enjoyed your essay. It's interesting that the classical definition of a mystic is a 'contemplative' in the sense you outline. And it's further fascinating to see the link between that, or contemplation in general, and the concept of "theoria". Ah, when will art and science and be one again? Or at least not separated by an ungulfable bridge?

Thank you for a nice bit of contemplation this morning.

Post 3

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 9:01am

Link

Edit

Hi Phillipe!

Thanks for the nice compliments. I was a little reluctant to emphasize "contemplation" because of the connotations that are usually associated with it by people who misunderstand the history. Indeed there are many mystical traditions that begin with Aristotle and end up taking a different path. Plotinus really make alot of Aristotle's "theoria" at Enneads 6. His interpretation is essentially mystical and it had a strong influence on subsequent commentators (mostly among the Arabs, Al-farabi, Al-Kindi, ibn Sina, ibn Roshd). In the west however, St. Augustine appropriated Plotinus' interpretation and weaved "theoria" into a Christian view. True Seneca had already spoke of "vita contemplativa" in the Roman tradition, but St. Augustine gave it a very Christian twist.

I am not speaking of mysticism when I approach "theoria". I am speaking of a particular way of understanding "theoria" as a human ideal. Again, I am not speaking of "ideal" in the Hegelian sense either. I am consciously borrowing a series of words from traditional philosophy (and maybe, as you note, from the tradition of mysticism), but I am using them in quite a different manner.

Jack Wheeler observed that there is a place for Aristotle's "theoria" in Rand's understanding of the heroic. I say that her use of "theoria" is as an aesthetic approach. I am thinking of her contemplation of the ideal man, which she paints with words in her novels. As I note, this is not something that is outside of our grasp. Aristotle doesn't speak of "theoria" as some unfathomable thing hidden in a cloud of unknowing. In fact, the EN is full of observations that make virtue (arete) something quite achievable.

Then "theoria" is the highest and greatest of all. I think that Rand certainly understood this as an artist. If I am not mistaken, I think she was an artist before a philosopher. If anyone achieved "theoria" in the aesthetic realm it was Ayn Rand. One of her greatest literary heroes was Victor Hugo. Have you read his receuil "Contemplations"? He does not use Aristotle to explain philosophically why he chose such a title. He just used the term as a title almost in an automatic way. I think this is evidence of Rand's observation that the nineteenth century artists (poets, novelists, etc) had an Aristotelian "sense of life".

What I hope to show with Oscar Wilde, is that he too had this deeply Aristotelian "sense of life" that he embibed at Oxford and from the Victorian ethos. Part of my thesis is that this Aristotelian teaching came via John Ruskin ("Modern Painters") and was sown into the aesthetics of late Victorian culture. I know that Rand was influenced by the Greeks, she openly admits her strong embrace of Aristotelianism and Greek art. Oscar Wilde was AS if not more enthused with Hellenism.

I am going to go ahead and reveal my piece de resistance:-) Frank Lloyd Wright was a devoted disciple of John Ruskin, and he used phrases borrowed directly from Ruskin to build his own aesthetic. "Organic architecture", for example, comes directly from Ruskin. I believe that when Rand was writing the Fountainhead and studying architecture (there is ample evidence in her Journals), she apporopriated aesthetic concepts from the same tradition of John Ruskin by reading Frank Lloyd Wright's essays, treatises, and books. I know this because I have already done the research. I already knew quite a bit about Ruskin and Wilde before going back to trace Rand's relation to Frank Lloyd Wright. I was astonished at the parallels I was seeing in the aesthetic thinking of Rand, Ruskin, Wright, and Wilde.

I know that this sounds far fetched, but I can prove that there is a common "sense of life" that Rand shared with these earlier thinkers. She did not share much with the moderns and even less with the postmoderns. In fact she found modern art and literature almost sterile. In the Romantic Manifest she describes modern art as a large embryo foaming and frothing, blinded and wailing. Very descriptive! :-) She vouched for Romanticism, but I think any clever reader will note how large that movement was, and they will also note the important role of "theoria" in Romanticism. That is its greatest legacy. I think Rand consciously identified with the nineteenth century (aesthetically) much more than the twentieth. She said that she was going to be something like a bridge from the past (XIXth c.) to the present. How ironic that Oscar Wilde shared this vision of his own role as artist. He said that he stood in symbolic relation to the art of his age. Obviously there are many areas where Rand and Wilde do not overlap. There is however a common element that they share, and that artists of the twentieth century aborted.

Now I know that I will be blamed of speaking Polish here:-) I know that many Objectivists are illiterate (that was not an encouraging word):) when it comes to the history of aesthetics. Others have noted that "esthetics" is one of the branches of philosophy that Objectivists like to underplay. How can this be done? If Rand was an artist and a literary genius, then how, tell me how can Objectivists not focus on the PRIMARY importance of esthetics? I think I have a strong case that Rand was deeply influenced by the cultural products of the late XIXth century. I don't think that her references were confined to Silver Age Russia either. The fact that she spent so much time investigating Wright's philosophy of aesthetics (this takes up a large part of her published journals) means to me that she knew the currents of European thought on this.

I don't know that Rand ever read Ruskin. I know she was familiar with Wilde and considered him a great artist. One of her characters in We the Living speaks of Wilde as having a benevolent sense of life. Oh yes, and the phrase "sense of life" did not originate with Rand. It is everywhere in Ruskin's critical writings. I have found it repeatedly in Sir Alexander Grant's critical commentaries on Aristotle's ethics (1866). I know Michelle and Lou tried to explain that "sense of life" came from the Spanish writers (Ortega y Gasset and Unamuno), but where did they get it?

I think it was one of those Aristotelian components of nineteenth century aesthetic thought. I am working on the idea that "theoria" and "sense of life" are somehow linked together as alternative explanations. I am in fact wondering, if "sense of life" might be a aesthetico-metaphysical translation of the Greek term "theoria". HMM! Could it not at least serve as a cognate?

Post 4

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 12:27pm

Link

Edit

Philippe and Michael,

Sorry I mispelled your name Philippe. Can you believe that? What audacity!:-)

I was reading some old notes from a class on Victorian literature and I came across an essay I wrote on Kant's "Ding an Sich" and the concept of "disinterestedness" in Victorian literary theory. I think both George Eliot and Matthew Arnold were really strongly influenced by this Kantian concept of disinterestedness. It is the idea that we can somehow get an objective view of a work of art that is devoid of any passion or emotion. It is purely disinterested. It is a critique of "beauty" which is some kind of quality detached from the observer, perhaps in the thing itself (the famous Ding an sich). We as perceivers or critics, can never understand the true relation between our perceptions and the thing that beauty is in itself. I speak of this because it is important to provide lines of demarcation when we speak of "theoria" or "disinterestedeness". Both terms have been used to explain a certain attitude or activity with regard to the object of criticism. It has been asserted that Kant did not hold "disinterestedness" to be a passive state. His epistemology cannot account for the object of contemplation though. That is the error in following that train of thought. Aristotle's "theoria" allows us to appreciate beautiful things without dislocating them from their metaphysical existence. When I say metaphysical, I mean of course, Rand's realism.

Matthew Arnold applied Kant to literary criticism in an essay titled "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" (1864). He attempted to define the attitude we display toward objects of beauty as "curiosity". He defines curiosity as "disinterested love of free play of the mind on all subjects, for its own sake." This I take to be the literary credo of extreme "art for art's sake". He also stated that the "aim of criticism is to see the object as in itself it really is." Arnold held then that the critic should be humbled by the act of contemplation. He postulated, along with Kant, that aesthetic standards are autonomous. The work of art assumes a universality that the disinterested critic alone is capable of achieving.

This was not what Oscar Wilde saw at all. He rewrote Arnold's statement saying by "the aim of criticism is to see the object as it really is not." Thus Wilde dethroned the Kantian Ding an Sich by asserting the subjective element in all asthetic appreciation. This is hardly any different from what Ayn Rand would assert. She claimed that an artist's sense of life is so deeply personal that the artist often feels great pain at seeing their work criticized or assessed. The artist (for Rand) shows their sense of life in their work, but these works of art are not to be judged by universal objective criteria and ranged into a classical canon. That is not to say that Rand was an extreme subjectivist either. In fact, for Rand, part of the critieria for judging a work of art is by how well the artists show their sense of life in their work. Does that make sense? The role of "theoria" in this aesthetic scheme is to hold up the ideal of man in his best, or in his most excellent being. Here is where the concept of man as a successful being (in the moral sense) can be on display as an aesthetic ideal.

Post 5

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 12:43pm

Link

Edit

Philippe, one more comment. I promise, only one:-)

You post rhetorically: "Ah, when will art and science and be one again?" When will they be one again?

I think that this is one of the unifying principles of Oscar Wilde's work. In my opinion, he was trying to apply scientific thought (evolutionary theory, human psychology, anthropology, etc.) to the range of aesthetic criticism. I think Rand had a similar agenda. She used scientific ideas (i.e. the Missing Link) as metaphors for their explanatory power. That is a token of a good writier. One who can make use of scientific commonalities as rich metaphors. This applies to Isabel Paterson as well. She used "the circuit of energy" as a metaphor that describes historical forces. She succeeds in her use of metaphor where Hegel (using Geist) was mind numbing.

Post 6

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 3:42pm

Link

Edit

Anthony, where do I begin! When will I end? Let me try to address a few of your comments for now.

1. I remember thinking when I first read The Fountainhead that Toohey's fictional column "Sermons in Stone" was Rand's allusion to Ruskin. He has an essay with a similar title but I can't remember it now. If my guess is true, then the allusion is negative.

2. I had written "..art and science and philosophy be one again..." and erased "philosophy" and forgot to erase "be." Adding "philosophy" seemed somewhat redundant, but you can add it if you wish.

3. You can misspell my name. I do too.

4. Mysticism does not mean "something outside of our grasp" as you seem to imply. Your description of contemplation is the meaning used by most scholars of mysticism. See the works and edited collections of Prof. Steven Kats.

5. Oscar Wilde had HIS OWN sense of life. One can only have ONE's OWN sense of life, just as one can only have ONE's OWN individuality. Sense of life, just like individuality, cannot be borrowed or shared. Would you care to write about Rand "sharing" an individuality with Wright?

Therefore even when you can demonstrate that Aristotle's sense of life and Rand's and Wilde's were similar, the similarity does not (I think) arise from reading influence as you seem to suggest. If Rand's sense of life was similar to Wilde's then her sense of life DREW her towards him. In other words, it was the precondition to her liking him, Wright, and (don't panic!) Holy Ari (stotle) to boot. It was that which made her like him / them to begin with.

Wilde was far more reckless and naive than Rand, if you ask me. Besides, he was totally UN-philosophical. His essay on Socialism demontrates this. He makes us laugh in large part because he indulges in very amusing contradictions, which are the base of his humor. Yet because of this he could or would not think philosophically, since philosophy requires the elimination of contradition in favor of systematic thought. It makes you lose your talent for humor and perhaps fiction writing in general. (This explains in large part why Rand gradually abandoned fiction as she became more philosophical). Wilde prefered to keep fiction as his means of expression. Rand I do think is above all an artist. She basically admits that she writes on politics and philosophy out of necessity more than joy.

Wright was influenced primarily by Gurdjieff in his later thought at least (1930's on). Gurdjieff had very sophisticated philosophy of "Objective Art" which predated Ruskin by centuries. But I can tell you that even today all students of architecture study Ruskin so the Wright-Ruskin connection is not at all surprising. It would be a miracle that a literate architect not know Ruskin. And if Rand researched architectural criticism, as we know she did, then it seems certain that she would have read Ruskin.

6. Yes it does seem that Rand would evaluate an artist by how well he expresses his sense of life. Even her definition of art suggests this, since she says it is a re-creation of reality based on the artist's metaphysical values. This implies PERSONAL values and all values originate or are inextricably tied to sense of life. The problem with that definition, if you think about it is that it completely obliterates the idea of creation. If artists, of all people the most creative on earth are not capable of creation (only re-creation) then the word creation itself CAN NEVER BE USED IN ANY CONTEXT. If we cannot use the word creation even when we speak of Ayn Rand writing Atlas Shrugged, then when are we allowed to? If you connect this with what I said above concerning the philosophical turn of mind being hostile to the fictional turn of mind, you will understand better. It is not a necessay dichotomy though it apparently was not fully resolved by Rand. This in turn possibly explains why we often hear of the lack of creativity and the stifling nature of Objectivism.

That's all for now!

Post 7

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 5:58am

Link

Edit

Hi Philippe,

Ok I got the spelling right:-)

Thanks for the comments. That's all? Should I wait for the next onslaught or forge ahead? hehe

I agree with you about Wilde for the most part. He wasn't a philosopher, but he came down from Oxford claiming to be a Professor of Aesthetics. HMM! There are many influences on Wilde. Much more than just Ruskin. I would have to speak of Herbert Spencer, Walter Pater, Benjamin Jowett, and so many more. That is for a book. You are right about Rand systematizing philosophy. I obviously consider her the better thinker by far. I should steer clear of the fundamentals then?

On Sharing individuality

I did not mean for you to infer that I think that Rand and Wilde shared an individuality. That is not perhaps the right word. Maybe, they "thought" or "felt" similarly about certain aesthetic concepts. Happy now?

More later, I'll wait for your reply, and of course I am going to come back hard on the Gurdieff-Wright influence. :-) I think I can prove that Wright was by FAR, more influenced by Ruskin, not Gurdieff.

For now, thanks for the thoughts! I appreciate your contributions.

Post 8

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 8:33am

Link

Edit

Ok, I can only tackle this in bits and pieces. Here is a suggestion. You don't have to prove a literal connection. It is perfectly legitimate to compare thinkers who have not read each other and show similarity. Say you want to compare Rand and Ruskin and Wilde, you can show similarity without worrying about whether Rand read Ruskin. Even if you know for sure she did not read him or only read him very casually, it is still legitimate so long as you can demonstrate the similarity. Or better, so long as YOU see the similarity and can verbalize it for YOURSELF. For example Whitman is compared in the scholarship to the Upanishads (by Malcolm Cowley) even though these were not published or translated in his day. Still Cowley claims, successfully I think, a striking eerie similarity.

There is another thing too. The idea of "influence" in general. A real thinker is never a product of influence. It was important to place Rand in historical context, as Chris did, especially since she was so Minervesque in her presentation of herself, like God, ex Nihilo. But this does not erase her true individuality. Neither does it explain her individuality. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING FUNDAMENTAL ABOUT HER. Other people following the same exact classes as Rand did at the exact same time did not end up thinking like her or having her sense of life. (Nothing can explain a person's individuality, just as nothing can explain God. This is why even for Rand the notion of I is AXIOMATIC. The idea of I, (interestingly like the idea of God) does not even have the status of concept, according to Objectivist epistemology).

Tracing the possible influences is very valuable in many regards, above all if one wants to deepen one's own understanding of the way in which the thinker framed his philosophy. But what you end up with is an understanding of THE FRAME, not that which is framed. The "frame" is the language and methodology. It is a little bit like the bones of the Saints which people are curious to see and touch. It means a lot, and we worship the relics, yet yet they are only the dead remnants. Only WE can give them life, if, paradoxically, they "inspire" us.

Also, as I said in the previous post. Even if you find that Rand read all of Ruskin five times over and stated to everyone around her that she loved his work you would still be faced with the strong possibility that something pre-existing in her DREW her to Ruskin. This is ESPECIALLY PROBABLE with Rand.

For instance, she saw Frank in a trolley and fell in love with him at first sight. Something in her already DREW her to Frank who certainly inluenced her. How? we don't know, or at least I don't. We know subjectively only if it happens to us and we say oh, this happened to me too. In this way we have a subjective proof. Proof none the less but subjective since we only have directly our own internal experience. I suspect Rand must have read in the same way and we even have childhood stories where she was already demanding firmly to read this or that.. Hating this, loving that, etc.

Now SOMETHING IN YOU sees a similarity between this or that and YOU want to show how Rand's esthetics can be compared or complemented or enriched by reading Wilde and Ruskin. We certainly need to be enriched so this is important. This is where your selfishness has to come in, YOU need all of them in some degree, and so by a leap of faith (I don't want to hear anything about my use of that word, please!)you plunge ahead literally CREATING the connections that thus far have not been made.

Now of course the connections in non-fiction have to be made in such a way that they do not violate the known facts about the people or ideas you are discussing and they have to be presented coherently and logically. And also you have to say, to follow the fashion, that the connections existed already and you "merely discovered" them otherwise people will accuse you of "inventing." Which of course is the truth but you suddenly will find yourself having to defend your invention against, of all things! people who you thought were pro-invention and pro-Western. This last because people don't like new inventions even when they say they do.. It disturbes the status quo too much and it makes them think too hard. Look at what they say about Chris for instance. They will never even bother to ask themselves if the invention is helpful or interesting or fun, which is the REAL issue. Suddenly the word invention will mean the basest evil. HOW DARE YOU CREATE! Even Objectivism is stifling in this regard since it only allows "re-creation". Notice that if CREATION really does not exist neither can RE-creation which becomes de-facto a stolen concept.

More civilized and more objective (more honest) people (like Rand herself) would accept a creative fiction though because in the fiction style, which offers far more possibilities, you can even make Rand dialogue with Wright and Ruskin, make them have love affairs etc. All sort of juicy stuff. Like in the Fountainhead where Wright is Roark, Rand is Dominique and Toohey is I suppose combination of Ruskin and many others. There was a time when you could submit poems or include poems as scholarly presentations. This method was accepted at the University of St. Petersburg at the time when Rand studied there. Ah! the Golden Age! But now only the driest pino-grigio non-fiction is accepted as you know. Look at the trouble Rand had because she wrote fiction-philosophy.

So your project I think really is like a non-fiction version of the esthetic philosophy of The Fountainhead. I can't wait to read it!

Post 9

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 8:54am

Link

Edit

Post 10

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 9:05pm

Link

Edit

Hi Philippe,

Thanks again. I am curious about the way you understand individuality and the way you say that the "I" is axiomatic, not a concept. It seems that you argue that an individual is somehow then like your own example, "Minervesque" (dreadful word) :-) How about saying that Rand, like Athena, was born fully armed straight from the head of Zeus? Right? That is what Sciabarra argues against as well.

Every thinker has a historical context as well as a dialogue with other thinkers. Sometimes the dialogue can be with many thinkers all at once. Rand wrote against many philosophers, particularly Kant, Hegel, and Marx. I do think that anyone (Rand included) who takes the time to read them and know them is going to be if not influenced by them, at least in some dialogue.

There are those who don't think that Rand had any "influences", that she came up with all of her ideas without any "influence" from any other writer or historical thinker. Then there are those who argue that she was very much influenced by intellectuals in her circle, as well as by many academic philosophers, and/or historical figures. Can both statements be right? I did say above that Rand was influenced by the Greeks, in the context of Aristotle. I might have said "she consciously chose to follow certain fundamentals of his philosophy."

Anyway I think Oscar Wilde's character Lord Henry Wooton would agree with you: "All influence is immoral--immoral from the scientific point of view...because to influence a person is to give him one's soul. He does not think his natural thoughts or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of someone else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly--that is what each of us is here for." (from The Picture of Dorian Gray, "The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, 28-29)

Part of my argument, as I voiced above, is that I think that there is a parallel between ONE aspect of Ruskin's thought that he imparted to both Wilde and Frank Lloyd Wright (directly or indirectly). The notion of applying "theoria" (an ethical concept borrowed from the EN) to aesthetics. I think that this is the thesis of my article. I also think that Rand consciously lifted certain elements out of Wright's writings. She copied these in her journals. I see the same thoughts appearing in the Romantic Manifesto, and in the Fountainhead. I am aware of the "Sermons in Stones". This was what Carlyle called Ruskin's work "The Stones of Venice". Wright read this particular work like a Bible. He drew heavily on it.

The "Theoretic Faculty" (which is the center of my argument, is drawn from Ruskin's "Modern Painters" It is not unique to Ruskin. As I say, it is a concept borrowed from Aristotle and has a precise relationship between aesthetical and ethical concepts. Ruskin did not always follow his own sermons:-) He often moralized so heavily that you might mistake him for a country parson. As you know many Victorians were like that. Wordsworth, Carlyle, Ruskin, and Matthew Arnold are sometimes called sages, because, like prophets, they felt it necessary to preach.

I remember Oscar Wilde said of the Romantic poet Wordsworth (in "The Decay of Lying"), that he went to the lakes but was not a lake poet because he simply found in stones the sermons he had already hidden there. In other words, it is not necessary to derive morality from nature for the purpose of art. Art has its own purpose, and it is not to teach a moral lesson.

I am very conscious of the fact that around Objectivists one often feels like they have to walk on egg shells. Sometimes I think I am walking on eggshells with combat boots:-) I do not wish to offend anyone by drawing parallels between different thinkers, but I think it is inevitable. Just ask Chris, he consistently breaks every record for having offended every Objectivist at one point or another. Good for him. I say, if you can't understand how to apply hermeneutics and interpret one system of thought into another, then polish up your Polish. At least buy a dictionary:-)

Post 11

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 3:04am

Link

Edit

Hi Anthony,

On Minerva versus History, it's a "both and," not an "either-or". I am sure Chris would agree too, but we have to ask him. In his book he stresses (and investigates and discovers) what Rand left unstressed about her own personal intellectual history, this is principally what makes the value of the book. But I don't think he denies the metaphysical reality of individualism.

I did not mean to imply that the Athena model is incorrect. Why do you think it was part of Greek mythology, or rather more accurately, the Greek system of psychology? The Athena type is a reality too. We can see it as an attempt to explain or illustrate the unfathomable nature of individualism.

By itself it does not give you the whole picture, this is true because nothing does.. It attempts to SHOW you that nothing does. No amount of knowing a true individual's history explains his individuality. It is not a Kantian thing, we literally are left unsatisfied by the explanations and at bottom feel only that individualism does exist and is a primary or "axiomatic". Parents, usually mothers, are keenly aware of some babies "natures" or "individualism" as soon as they are born. Good historians when writing about (e.g.) the history of French Kings usually have a few pages about the "character" of the King befor they go on to explain what he did as king. They will use a few stories from the Kings childhood to illustrate his character, saying how he was always very brave or very resolute (or the opposite). These are ILLUSTRATIONS of the character though, not causal explanations. They SHOW you the character which itself is proportionally inexplicable to the degree that it is truly individual.

Please forgive me but I am quite amused that you are surprised that "I" is axiomatic according to Objectivism. Each time I say this to the most knowledgeable "official" Objectivists they are surprised too and deny it, then challenge me to give them the reference. Then suddenly they remeber and try to challenge the context I used it in; then because you can't challenge an Objectivist axiom, they then obediently submit to the will of Allah.

I did not invent this I-is-an-axiom thing. It is pure mountain spring Objectivism, though apparently it is the best kept secret of Objectivism. I think I know why it was kept a secret too. That is, it was kept in the background and only mentioned "briefly, in passing" as the saying goes. But you have to pay money for me to explain that one, or find a good explanation yourself. Then we can trade.

I love the Wilde quote about influence! My sentiments exactly! I was trying to express the idea that there is MORE TO IT than influence which is only at bottom usually a very poor explanation or an individual's essence. This doen not mean that influence does not exist or should not be studied. Only be careful not to fall for mechanistic determinism well disguised. Always ask, when you think you found an "influence" (e.g) why is it that Rand when studying Lossky, thought this or kept this, but Natasha her classmate, did not? That way you are forced to find something pre-existing in Rand. Ask why did she decide to read this to begin with. Study that angle too. That way you walk the "Razor's Edge" to heaven, i.e. Theoria and the Nous.

From what I remember, Chris does this quite well. In other words he explains the history without falling for influence-determinism.

Post 12

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 8:41am

Link

Edit

HMM! I think a confusion of mythologies perhaps? I think you mean Roman Minerva appropriated by Hegel and you are stressing the owl of Minerva (reason) that takes its flight at dawn? The Greek myth of Athena, the same goddess is born from the head of Zeus when Hephaestus knocks him with his hammer. Bottom line, Reason/reason. I don't think that the Greeks understood individualism in this way. That came much later when St. Augustine introduced the concept of consciousness, or soul. (Si fallor sum) Afterwords it was possible to unify consciousness with a thinking entity, a true individual. That is the way Rand explains it in ITOE. I am still very intrigued by your comments about the "I" as axiomatic. I mean intrigued in a very positive way. I hope you will expand more.

The Athena myth is about chaos/cosmos. Reason as a historical concept (i.e. Zeitgeist) came through Hegel, and he used the Minerva myth in this way. But Sciabarra says in ARRR that the idea that Rand bounded forth out of the mind of Zeus (acontextually) is pure myth. You are so right to point out his stress on historical context. What I think you add is the individual component. You are stressing this in your argument. I wish Chris would tell us what he thinks.

Post 13

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 8:46am

Link

Edit

BTW: I am flat broke, but I promise to save up in order to purchase your secret. Can I pay you in installments? I don't like lay away, it's for Kmart shoppers. This is Lower East Side diamonds were talkin' bout. :)

Post 14

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 4:22pm

Link

Edit

You are, my friend, very naive, (or rather a victim of logical positivist historians) if you think individualism did not exist prior to Augustine... or psychology not before the 19th century. Reason as a historical concept exists at the very least since the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word". Please do not give Hegel that credit. He merely said it in Germany where it had already been said countless times.

Besides, if you read carefully what Rand says about Augustin, she only ASKS, very much as an aside, if the philosophical "concept" in "the cartesian sense" (of consciousness) does not occur until him. The answer is yes, "si fallor sum" and she does not disagree and finds it interesting.

This most certainly does not mean that the idea itself did not exist. Paradoxically Rand is acknowledging here the idea that ideas can exist without having been formulated "formally" in philosophy. And you are also revealing a grave prejudice which Rand, thank heavens, did not hold, namely that mythology is "merely" myth, that is, irrational nonsense. Unfortunately this is a very serious problem which Objectivists, such as with Walsh, regularly display.

Also, it is most emphatically not MOI who says the I is axiomatic. I said before--Rand herself says this. Why do you keep saying it is my idea? I do agree however. I would LOVE to take credit for it, but that would be stealing the Objectivist God, quite literally. Trouble is these days the sanctuary is empty, so it seems that if I did steal it, nobody would even notice. WORSE, I suspect they might be HAPPY I stole it. They don't even want Rand's God.

(This is a clue to the "secret." If you solve it and give the right answer I send you $50.)

As for Minerva and Athena all I am saying is that it is also way of stressing and expressing the idea of individualism, even if other meanings can be interpreted. Rand even uses it texto to describe Galt.

Post 15

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 10:31pm

Link

Edit

Hi Plip:-)

Naive, huh? yeah!! I have not been called naive in a while. Feels kind of good. Of course I can't claim to have recently foraged in King Tut's tomb like you, :) but I know the Bible pretty well. No I would not call the Bible a source of individuality. Well, it's not the source I would go to first. How's that?

You seem to be dividing consciousness (in the cartesian sense) as a concept (you say idea) and individuality as an axiom. I still find that intriguing. It's not evidence of naivete though. So you say individuality existed prior to St. Augustine? So you don't consider "si fallor sum" as novel in a historical sense? Just consider the implications for posterior thought. Consider Boehme or any of the German mystics schooled in augustinian thought and tell me they did not reach Hegel! Don't you think that (Augustine) had an effect on medieval mysticism? There, discuss that!

Excuse me mon cher ami, reread my post. I never said that myth is not psychologically significant. In fact I think it is very valid for its explanatory power. I think you should be able to distinguish between the many different myths that overlap each other though. This is not an indication that I don't take myth seriously, but evidence that I know how to differentiate between Roman and Greek mythology. Ok? So there!

Logical positivist historians? Egad, I feel drowsy just thinking about it. I agree with you about ITOE and the dialogue. She was only an interested participant. Right? But why did she agree? You seem to think that individualism can be axiomatic and yet you say above that it is an idea. Can you define "idea" here? Is it a "concept" or a principle, an axiom, or what? BTW It's not naive to probe for answers!

Oh, forget the $50, just send me a bottle of that "driest pino-grigio" and please, by Christmas! :-)

Post 16

Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 6:00am

Link

Edit

The Romans saw Minerva and Athena as the same God. I am only following in their interpretation, which I think is correct.

So you do not think the Bible is a source of individuality. Well, Rand certainly thought it was, she said Jesus was one of mankind's "great teachers of individualism." Now you explain THAT to me, if you can; while maintaining, at the same time and without contradiction, your statements about individualism not existing before Augustin.

Seriously how can you even think for one second that Aristotle, Plato, Buddha, Moses, Hadrian, Socrates, Pindar, Sophochles, Euripides were NOT INDIVIDUALS? I will remind you that individualism does not exits "Platonically" on it's own, only IN INDIVIDUALS. Now how could Jesus have taught individualism without the latter existing?

This issue here is really at best the philosophical formulation of the modern (cartesian) concept of consiousness. Now certainly ideas from the past were not all formulated in this modern way, so perhaps Augustin did this. Anyway, I can say from my own experience that I spent many months of reading to find out: Who had said this to Rand. And where could this idea could be found in the literature.

It was, I found, a stinking can of worms. Perhaps Chris can now tell us who are "Alphabet Soup" as they are called in the lingo, but when I researched, I think you had to kiss LP's backside to know the answer, and Chris was not willing to do it.

As far as the scholarly literature is concerned, there is the wildest and widest disagreement on the issue, so I am very very far away from proposing implications which would be disturbing, as you suggest, to this already completely bomshelled field. And I did confine the research within the limits of the Hecademus sect. What I found remided me of a Haitian song they used to play at carnival, where the singer wonders who gave him his wonderful gift for song. The song goes on to say how The Father claimed it was He who gave it. Then The Son rises up and says, 'no, it was me.' Then the Holy Ghost says, "non, non, non, c'est Moi!" etc. And a battle breaks out in Heaven.

Remembering offhand (perched as I am now in the mountains of Haiti without the available books) the scholars of Aristotle vigorously protest that Aristotle did have a concept of consciousness and accuse the scholars who said he did not of not knowing the exact meaning of certain Greek terms. The partisans of Plotinus say it was him and accuse the others of prejudice against their master. The Catholic church scholars seem to give credit to Augustin but conciousness does not interest them excessively, since they are interested more in "soul." They at least are not silly enough to think that Augustine invented soul, which would be an obvious undercutting of their own religion. Then there is a man who was the great friend then rival of Augustin and and whose books were nearly all burned by the church (thanks to Augustin in large part) and his partisans claim it was him and that Augustin stole the idea. I can't remember his name now, but he was very famous and lived in England for some time. I remember being very intrigued by that man and being enraged that we do not have the majority of his books anymore. I think he was an Aristotelian.

There is a lot more too it as well. But I gave up when I found myself neck high into debates about the real meaning of Greek and Sanskrit terms by accomplished linguists. Actually the problem cannot be solved as currently formulated because no scholar alive speaks all the ancient languages.

As far as the axiomatic nature of self or I which is separate though derived from the axiom of consciousness, you need to reread Rand to see what she says on this, then we can talk again. This is the fourth time I have to tell you that I did not invent this, it is Rand's doing and you are confessing a lacuna in your knowledge of the Objectivist axioms by asking me to do your homework for you. Besides, I do not have chapter and verse here in Haiti to give you the reference, only mango and orange trees.

I know if I ask you if myth contains truth or 'explanatory power' you will say yes. But if you really beleived this 'yes' with your ENTIRE UNDIVIDED, INDIVIDUAL, BEING, you could not have written the sentence above where YOU yourself say to me that Hegel used the Minerva myth in his mumbo-jumbo on historical reason, then proceed to say that historical reason was invented by Hegel. You obviously see Hegel here as putting the content 'historical reason' into the myth instead of the other way around. If you though that THE MYTH containing "explanatory power" put the content in Hegel, how could you conclude that Hegel invented the content? Only if you are like the Logical Positivists who blithely seem to view these things as merely decorative literary devices to make pretty the content of "serious" (which, to them, means "real") thinking. As opposed to mythology which is "not real" because it is, well, a "myth' of course. Fairy tales for poets and children. At best metaphoric ornaments for philosophers.

Remember the story I told you about Edith Efron. I had seen her copy of FTNI where Rand had inscribed:

To Edith: Who wanted non-fiction as "the Real" Ayn Rand.

(I am remembering from memory so it might not be the exact way she wrote it).

Much prefer fiction, so I will send a Sauterne... when I get back to the States in January. Nice spelling of my name by the way...

Post 17

Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 8:43am

Link

Edit

Gents,

I've been super busy, and didn't see this discussion till now; very interesting and enjoyable. My name has been mentioned a few times and I am not quite sure what I'm being asked (a few things, perhaps?).

Philippe is right of course about "influence" in a very important sense: We need to place thinkers in historical context (which is what I try to do in RUSSIAN RADICAL), and then, we can see, within that context, what the thinker might have been ~responding~ to... because all of philosophy is as much about dialogue as it is about truth-seeking. And sometimes, the attainment of truth takes place through the dialogue itself---as we learn to shift our vantage points on a particular problem.

Philippe is also correct that it is always a question of "both-and" in the study of intellectual influences, contexts, and creation: We ~do~ have the ability to think and to question lots of things in our context. The ~real~ issues are: How ~much~ can we reasonably question? Are there not some things that are accepted on such a tacit level that they are almost never brought into question? Nathaniel Branden has argued that even when we check our premises, there are certain things that remain so tenacious, that it would never even occur to us that we ~should~ be questioning them. It's different for different people---but it can vary to include everything from cultural and gender norms to our own habitual methods of awareness and sense of life.

One thing that I took for granted in RUSSIAN RADICAL was the relatively innocuous fact that students do learn ~something~ from their teachers. When one applies that premise to the study of any other thinker--except Rand--it is a rather uncontroversial claim. And then, when one applies it to Rand: WHAMMO! How dare you! But if determinism is an error, so is the belief that one is sui generis. It is always individualism AND context. An emphasis on the former without regard to the latter leads to atomism; an emphasis on the latter without regard to the former leads to vulgar determinism.

This is one false alternative that must always be questioned.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 18

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 5:51am

Link

Edit

Philippe,

Minerva and Athena are goddesses not "Gods", and there is a significant difference between the way the Romans saw Minerva and the way the Greeks saw Athena. The Greeks named Athens after Athena, set her up as the Protectoress of their city, etc. The Romans did not give Minerva the same intense worship that the Greeks gave to Athena. I asked my professor of Classical myth if Athena was a source of Greek individuality. She said in some ways yes, individuality has always existed, but that the Greeks were more communal and collective. (A good study, Bruno Snell "The Discovery of the Greek Mind") There were athletic contests where winners were celebrated, etc. but by far collectivism was more common.

It stands to reason Philippe. Why would a philosophy like Objectivism stress "individualism" so strongly for its role in literature and philosophy if it were not something relatively recent? Here (since you are perched on a mountain top without a librbary) is Rand in the "Romantic Manifesto":

"Prior to the nineteenth century, literature presented man as a helpless being whose life and actions were determined by forces beyond his control: either by fate and the gods, as in the Greek tragedies, or by an innate weakness, "a tragic flaw," as in the plays of Shakepeare. Writers regarded man as metaphysically impotent; their basic premise was determinism. On that premise one could not project what might happen to men; one could only record what did happen--and chronicles were the appropriate literary form of such recording." (RM, 88)

I don't care what Rand said about Jesus and the Christian religion, I personally don't think that Christianity OR Jesus are good examples of the FULL CONTEXT of individuality the way I understand it. Sorry. I didn't discover the power of philosophy and reason just to slip back into religion and realize it as superior to philosophy. No explanation necessary, and no, I am not going to do your homework for you:-). I am also sorry that I cannot share your direct mystical intuition about the passages of the Bible where Jesus reveals the mystery of individuality. These are essentially closed chapters in my life. No I cannot accept Jesus' statement: "I and my Father are one" or "I am the way the truth and the life" (Matthew). This one above all gets under my skin: "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt. 23:12) Perhaps a theologian specializing in hermeneutics can explain, I personally cringe at the contradictions.

I think that humanity has come a long way since the days of "the Bible" and if you do not recognize this fine tuning on the human experience, then there is nothing that can be said. The same goes for the Greek and Roman mythology. Don't make the mistake of believing that just because something is old, that it is better or more true. There are plenty of old things that are perfectly useless.

I am not trying to say that there was NEVER individuality until St. Augustine either, I was speaking in terms of a unified concept of consciousness for PHILOSOPHY. NOT for mysticism. You are the one who started talking about the history of mysticism, the primacy of individuality and the nature of influences. I thought you might expound more. It was an invitation not a challenge or an admission of ignorance. No you do not have to do my homework for me:-)

I made one comment on Rand's influences that seems to have set you on fire, I wrote:

"I think I have a strong case that Rand was deeply influenced by the cultural products of the late XIXth century."

Was that it? Was that what made you go off on the nature of individuality and influences? Again, let me quuote from Rand in the RM: As a child, I saw a glimpse of the pre-World WarI world, the last afterglow of the most radiant cultural atmosphere in human history (achieved not by Russian but by Western culture). So powerful a fire does not die at once...I must emphasize that I am not speaking of concretes, nor of politics, nor of journalistic trivia, but of that period's "sense of life.""

Notice I did not say that she was influenced by some particular individual but by cultural products (pl). Ruskin was very culturally significant in the late nineteenth century. When I read in Meryl Secrest's biography that Wright might not have realized how much he was influenced by Ruskin, but that he clearly demonstrated it. I don't concede that it is a leap from there to conclude that since Rand read Wright and knew his work intimately, that she retained or at least entertained some major aesthetic premises from the Arts and Crafts Movement.

What those premises are I have tried to outline in my article. I have tried to show that "theoria" as understood by Ruskin, was a faculty not a mystical "illumination". I contended that Rand developed this "theoria" in her concept of the role of contemplation in aesthetic appreciation. I do not mean by "influence" some kind of mystical connection. I mean an intellectual assessment, and a "sense of life". Rand said she could identify with the "sense of life" of the pre-WWW I era. Generationally, I guess that would imply her adult audience:-) who must have been old enough to have lived in the age of Oscar Wilde or Ruskin (both died in 1900) If "sense of life" cannot influence one, then Rand is wrong.

As far as influences goes, this sentence that you wrote left me laughing Philippe:

"Wright was influenced primarily by Gurdjieff in his later thought at least (1930's on). Gurdjieff had very sophisticated philosophy of "Objective Art" which predated Ruskin by centuries."

Please show me where you got this piece of wisdom. I have read the major biographies of Wright and I have also tracked down the scholarly references linking Ruskin and Wright. Meryl Secrest ("Frank Lloyd Wright: A Biography"), George P. Landow ("The Aesthetical and Critical Theories of John Ruskin"), Peter Blake ("FLW: Architecture and Space"), John Rosenberg ("The Darkening Glass"). As for Gurdieff, I don't even see him mentioned in FLW's collected writings at all. If he was indeed the PRIMARY influence that you suggest, please provide the references.

Thanks, Anthony

Post 19

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 7:18am

Link

Edit

Chris,

I am very conscious of the difference between an influence and individuality, context and creation, etc. Regarding how this can be done in Objectivism, I have learned from you! I have also been accused (SOLOHQ Olivia Hanson) of being a puppet of yours. You quite rightly pointed out to the troll that I have my own mind. In fact I do use you as an intellectual reference as much as I can. I do see some parallel to what I am doing here and what you did in ARRR. I do believe that Rand must have derived something from Lossky, and the "sense of life" of the Silver Age, otherwise she would not have acknowledged it.

I think that by dealing specifically with aesthetic concepts, my task is somewhat easier. I mean I don't have to speak directly about epistemology since it is not my primary focus. Even though Rand deals alot with pych-epistemology in RM, I don't need to give the entire record of it in an article that seeks to expand her aesthetic contextually (historically). Above all, my idea that "theoria" was central to late nineenth century aesthetic thought is perfectly consistent with Rand's INDEPENDENT conception of "sense of life".

BTW, I was thinking of entertaining the idea of synchronicity (God forbid I should speak of Jung)between Wright and Rand, but I know for a fact that much of her aesthetics was derived from Wright and not developed entirely without his influence (especially with "The Fountainhead"). Remember her letter to FLW about Howard Roarke?

I do know that Wright rejected much of Ruskin's teaching, especially with regard to the role of machinery in architecture, but he still retained Ruskin's central thesis. This is, I think, key to my thesis, and the one I am trying to support. I never said that Rand did not create her own aesthetic or that she was completely relying on Wright or Victor Hugo, etc. I thought I was careful in how I approached it. Like you say, WHAMMO! :-)