humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:15:42 -0700, Agent Cooper
wrote:

>On Apr 1, 6:22 pm, Malrassic Park wrote:
..
>> Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course
>> can be universal standards of beauty - provided you define the terms
>> of what objects you are going to classify as beautiful and what you
>> take as the ideal harmonious relationship of the elements of that
>> particular object. To say, "It's in the eyes of the beholder" - that,
>> of course, would be pure subjectivism, if taken literally. It isn't [a
>> matter of] what you, for unknown reasons, decide to regard as
>> beautiful. It is true, of course, that if there were no valuers, then
>> nothing could be valued as beautiful or ugly, because values are
>> created by the observing consciousness - but they are created by a
>> standard based on reality. So here the issue is: values, including
>> beauty, have to be judged as objective, not subjective or intrinsic.
..
>Boy does that sound familiar. What does she say about the mathematical
>and the dynamical sublime?

I'm certain it would be just another of her "train wrecks" boiling
down to the assertion that something is beautiful and the beautiful is
objective because Ayn Rand said so.
--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge