TTI Forums

[Moderator note: I have split this thread from the discussion on art, in order to show a particular kind of logical fallacy. First few posts here set the stage and the context. I have decided to keep them as such, since merging them together in a single quote post is too much work. -Oleksandr- ]


I'm having a hard time even thinking of any objective criteria that I could apply to art.

Riprion wrote:I'm having a hard time even thinking of any objective criteria that I could apply to art.

Read Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.
Surely, you've heard of Objectivist view on this matter? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

yeah, I don't see any objective criteria there.

Also, I think it is a typical representation of the self indulgent drivel many artists write concerning the importance of art.

Riprion wrote:Also, I think it is a typical representation of the self indulgent drivel many artists write concerning the importance of art.

This is funny.

You are fine with telling everybody that art is whatever they choose to be but the moment you see a theory that presents an objective theory of art and shows that there is a rational need for art for any rational man, you get instantly pissy without pointing to a single point that you disagree with.

Never mind, I was wrong; you are a hopeless cause.

Oh noes he dissed Rand!!!11! Apostasy!!!111!

C'mon Olek give me a break. A writer (writers are artists) describes what she thinks her art is and then proclaims it to have this magnificent world transforming power and that isn't obviously self-indulgent? Sure art has occasionally generated a powerful aesthetic experience in a person that has been transformative but that doesn't mean that the transformation is a necessary condition for something to be art.

You keep asserting that there are objective criteria in there without providing any. Value judgements, confirmation of personal views of existence, sense of life, joy, and of course the kitchen sink are objective? I'm supposed to believe that a single work of art can be all that to all people because it is some objective concretization of reality? Art is based in human perception and human perception is subjective. There have been studies supporting this showing that if you show multiple people the same scene they will come away with multiple interpretations of that scene. Humanity invented the Scientific Method in order to subvert human subjectivity which was getting in the way of objective measurement of the physical world.

If you are going to claim that art is objective, the burden of proof is own you since it is prima facially subjective. Also, merely linking to Rand quotes isn't really an argument. *edit* it's a fallacious appeal to authority.

Riprion wrote:Sure art has occasionally generated a powerful aesthetic experience in a person that has been transformative but that doesn't mean that the transformation is a necessary condition for something to be art.

I never claimed anything like this nor does the book that I referenced.

Riprion wrote:You keep asserting that there are objective criteria in there without providing any.

I did provide. Ayn Rand wrote a book on this which I've linked. You have yet to provide any response to that content.

What happened to my last post responding to Olek? Server squirrels?

Riprion wrote:What happened to my last post responding to Olek? Server squirrels?

I have deleted your message with a copy of it sent to you via personal message.

If you can't find any other way to argue but to attempt to belittle me for agreeing with Ayn Rand (by my own rational mind), then you are trolling.

I wasn't belittling you for believing Rand although I did belittle Rand's art theory as being self-indulgent. I answered your specific criticisms and then pointed out that you were using Rand as a cudgel instead of actually making an argument. You still haven't made an argument; you have made appeals to authority. Since this is a public forum that is the last I will say on the matter.

Riprion wrote:You still haven't made an argument; you have made appeals to authority.

This is a curious but commonly used logical fallacy. I may branch this off to a separate thread but for now I want to point out the actual meaning underneath that statement for the sake of others on this forum to show why I deleted some posts by Riprion (I have all the copies and if somebody is curious I can send you the copies via pm).

The hidden meaning is the following: agreeing to ideas that are not your own means being a puppet, a slave who mindlessly follows somebody, it means becoming a member of a "cult." This fallacy urges you to develop your own ideas that must be different from ideas of others. The view is that reality is different and unique for each of us, so you ought not lower yourself to agree with others without making some changes.

So if somebody stands up and says that theory is correct, their reaction is to say: "you are being a drone who accepts ideas of others." Notice that such view does not care how you accept those ideas. There is no bother checking that, and it doesn't allow for the possibility of a rational agreement. It may tolerate agreement on a few small ideas but agreement with a whole large system in full is a travesty. In such view, it is an admission of your weakness - that you can't come up with your own different system of thought.

So when a person who holds such logical fallacy asks you to present an argument, what he really means is for you to give a different argument; it would not be acceptable to say "I agree with the view X which is brilliantly presented here by another person. I don't have the time nor the same depth of understanding nor ability to explain the topic as well as that other person. But I did think on the matter for a while and have come to understand the topic in full and rationally agree with that system of thought, so it would be best if I simply direct you to such and such article or book which presents the viewpoint clearly."

Such a statement would always be viewed by them as an "appeal to authority," because in that flawed view there are only 2 options: your own subjective view or a mindless obedience to the views of others.

So coming back to the original quote.

Riprion wrote:You still haven't made an argument; you have made appeals to authority.

"Giving an argument" can only mean spitting out something right here on this forum, and whatever you will say will be checked against the ideas of others (in this case Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff), and if any similarities are found, your argument will be called an appeal to authority.

So much for a rational discourse.

:sigh:
Well since Olek decided to split the thread and paint me as a troll I guess I will respond.

Wow, appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and you are claiming that pointing this out is a logical fallacy. You could have been civil and made an argument like, "Rand says X and I think that it is applicable to this discussion on the subjectivity of art in X way." That is engaging in a discourse. Simply holding up a book banging on it a couple of times and essentially saying, "it's all in here if you don't agree you are hopeless" is a fallacious appeal to authority and IMO equivalent to Bible-thumping zealotry.

Condescending Musashi by holding up a book and saying, "Sigh, Musashi, sometimes I wonder if you have ever any non-fiction works by Ayn Rand. Have you read Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand? She answers all such questions.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html"
is using Rand as a cudgel to squash dissent.

And condescending redhotrebel with this restatement,
"In essense: the more people agree with you that it is art, the higher change of that being art.

This is nothing more than a collective Subjectivism, where the standard is whatever the masses decide. Under such view, art as such means nothing and stands for nothing and whatever it may mean now will easily change tomorrow depending on how masses feel tomorrow.

Digging your own grave here, folks."

well uncivil and well wrong because meaning can be individual and personal just because meaning changes doesn't mean it is worthless. As well as market interactions are not collective they are individual so it isn't collective subjectivism just subjectivism. And I will restate that in a heterogeneous society, because of subjective reactions to an aesthetic experience you will have a plurality of meaning being ascribed to work. What is wrong with that? I have no idea because it's in the book somewhere, but Olek deigns to even find the requisite passage, cite it, and present it as an argument.

All Rand is doing is describing the possible effects of an aesthetic experience. Again, that does not mean that those effects are necessary qualities of art only potential qualities.

I am all for rational discourse. Apparently though you can be rude and condescending and not be a troll. I however critique your tactics and I get deleted with the troll hammer. If all you can do is wave a book in the air without specific references that we can discuss because by your own admittance you don't have a depth of understanding, what is the point of even being in the discussion?

Now for the line by line response in green.

Oleksandr wrote:

Riprion wrote:You still haven't made an argument; you have made appeals to authority.

This is a curious but commonly used logical fallacy. I may branch this off to a separate thread but for now I want to point out the actual meaning underneath that statement for the sake of others on this forum to show why I deleted some posts by Riprion (I have all the copies and if somebody is curious I can send you the copies via pm).

The hidden meaning is the following: agreeing to ideas that are not your own means being a puppet, a slave who mindlessly follows somebody, it means becoming a member of a "cult." This fallacy urges you to develop your own ideas that must be different from ideas of others. The view is that reality is different and unique for each of us, so you ought not lower yourself to agree with others without making some changes.

Actually there is no hidden meaning the meaning I present is plain. It is perfectly fine to agree with an authority and present their argument, but you have to present a specific argument against the other side's specific argument. You have to explain how they correlate to the context at hand. You have to engage in discourse.

The view is not that reality is different and unique for all that would be silly to claim that there is no objective reality. However perception has been objectively shown, through the scientific method, to be subjective. Therefore people will perceive the objective reality in a subjective way. Again, that is why the scientific method was created as a way to remove the subjectivity from observation.

So if somebody stands up and says that theory is correct, their reaction is to say: "you are being a drone who accepts ideas of others." Notice that such view does not care how you accept those ideas. There is no bother checking that, and it doesn't allow for the possibility of a rational agreement. It may tolerate agreement on a few small ideas but agreement with a whole large system in full is a travesty. In such view, it is an admission of your weakness - that you can't come up with your own different system of thought.

Not at all. If someone stands up and says a theory is correct, they have to be able to defend that assertion. This is especially true when it flies in the face of empirical evidence of the subjectivity of perception. The burden of proof is on you. That would be a good time to cite specific passages of the theory and its proofs in order to defend your position. If you cannot defend that position or offer up examples but you still present and believe it, than yes that would make you a mindless drone (this is the weakness not lacking a completely new theory), because you should probably just be offering up different parts into the discussion in order to better understand the material through discourse.

So when a person who holds such logical fallacy asks you to present an argument, what he really means is for you to give a different argument; it would not be acceptable to say "I agree with the view X which is brilliantly presented here by another person. I don't have the time nor the same depth of understanding nor ability to explain the topic as well as that other person. But I did think on the matter for a while and have come to understand the topic in full and rationally agree with that system of thought, so it would be best if I simply direct you to such and such article or book which presents the viewpoint clearly."

The view X in question is an entire book with a plethora of disparate arguments which weren't applied in a critical way. If you did understand the topic, you would be able to at least have rudimentary discussion about it. You would be able to cite specific examples. If you don't have the time for the discussion then stay out of it or only present a point or two. What is telling here is, "rationally agree with the system of thought." This is telling because it is the system not the actual theory that is understood. This explains the lack of critical discourse.

Such a statement would always be viewed by them as an "appeal to authority," because in that flawed view there are only 2 options: your own subjective view or a mindless obedience to the views of others.

This is a false dichotomy that I have already answered above. You could also have a critical understanding of the material and be able to discuss it by referencing specific arguments.

So coming back to the original quote.

Riprion wrote:You still haven't made an argument; you have made appeals to authority.

"Giving an argument" can only mean spitting out something right here on this forum, and whatever you will say will be checked against the ideas of others (in this case Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff), and if any similarities are found, your argument will be called an appeal to authority.

So much for a rational discourse.

Well at least we got some rational discourse about logical fallacies.

Riprion wrote:...you have made appeals to authority.

I don't want to get in the middle of this too much but Ripion, Olex's argument was not an appeal to authority. Here is an excerpt:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html

There is a lot more if you want to finish reading it on the link there, it's just too long for a forum post.

Since Rand is a qualified expert on objectivism it is not an appeal to authority.

As far as my post that was commented on, I was completely in the wrong. I was using appeal to popularity in my argument, which was pointed out to me. I didn't get too caught up in the method/wording of delivery and did not find it unacceptable in any way or I would have said something.

Actually, Rand is an authority on Objectivism as you pointed out but not art. Also, I indicted any expertise that might be claimed as self-indulgent because the arguments are self aggrandizing and therefore necessitating skepticism. *edit* Which would fall under the fourth point concerning bias in the link provided. *edit* This would typically result in further debate and argumentation which was not forthcoming. What Olek did is essentially say the illustrious Rand disagrees with you, QED you're wrong, that is an appeal to authority. Well how does she disagree with me specifically? I just wanted an argument that could be answered. I would have no problem with that. I like arguing.

I'm disengaging. I'm going back to talking about art.

Is it safe to say the Ayn Rand is the fundamental authority on Objectivism?

Its not wrong to consider Ayn Rand's perspectives if they have relevance. I think it would be wrong to blindly accept her premisses without my own consideration. Her views may very well be flawless, or flawed. But Ayn Rand doesn't have to deal with the errors I make – I do, whether I'm operating under her premises or not.