Hume maintains an empirically difficult position due to the vastness of discord of taste that he cites early as unavoidable and obvious. There are classics though that have endured the test of time; Homer is as appreciated, if not more so, than he was in millennia past. Therefore, he concludes, there are certain principles of approbation and blame. If these fail, of course, it must be due to some defect in the critic. An individual in fever cannot rely on sense of taste, a person affected with jaundice annot rely on color...etc... A quality of a critic then must be to be free of bias. His theory of superior critics, the views of which is that upon which we must base our own tastes, depends on this notion. So then, here is my question: do you think it is possible to achieve such a level of disinterest? Hume himself admits that even critics may disagree on some particulars due to the presence of bias. Bias must fall along a continuum; surely it is possible to be less biased or more biased than another, so perhaps the critic just needs to be as unbias as possible? But would this not then require further elucidation, to wit, the desired point along the continuum?
Question in full? Can a critic, can a human being exist, even temporarily in a state of meaningful (excluding sleep, coma, death...etc...) unbias? If not, how unbias ought he or she to be? Does there exist this desired extent of objectivity?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Apology or Censure?
Herein lies the questions for the week 2 of blogging.
A prima facie reading of Republic lends itself to the interpretation that Plato was a severe advocate for the censure of art. Plato argues that poetry (poesis: greek for 'making') is an imitation of an imitation and thus thrice removed from the realm of truth. A memetic theory of art does not require his intricate metaphysical system, and so I shall not address that here. Also vital to his seeming condemnation of art is that art appeals to the emotional aspect of the human psyche, one in constant tension and struggle with the rational. Rationality is of utmost importance to Plato, and as such any entreaty to the emotional is seen as dangerous. Johnston argues in his lecture that a closer examination will beget a more complicated and sensitive image of Plato and his view. Johnston maintains that Plato was well aware of art's potency and how it affected even him. Plato uses art often in Republic, and even Republic itself is a work of fiction. Johnston argues that this is indicative of Plato's acceptance that art may indeed be useful for the dissemination of truth and virtue. It strikes me though, that anything Plato has said via his poesis could have as easily been articulated absent fiction. As students and teachers we do not resort to fiction to articulate the meaning behind the allegory of the cave nor Plato's reasoning of Republic. So while Plato did use art, he did not need to. Plato was well aware that he did not live in his ideal city; art may have been currently useful, if still not useful in the ideal city where all citizens could grasp nonfictional articulations of truth and virtue.
What is your interpretation of Plato's view of art? Be sure to mention its relationship with truth and its potential utility in the dissemination thereof. Once you have done this, agree or disagree with Plato and explain why.
Fictions do present actions and events that did not happen; in this way Plato is correct about their divorce from truth. Is he, however, correct that because of this, art and poetry do not, and cannot, depict truth?
A prima facie reading of Republic lends itself to the interpretation that Plato was a severe advocate for the censure of art. Plato argues that poetry (poesis: greek for 'making') is an imitation of an imitation and thus thrice removed from the realm of truth. A memetic theory of art does not require his intricate metaphysical system, and so I shall not address that here. Also vital to his seeming condemnation of art is that art appeals to the emotional aspect of the human psyche, one in constant tension and struggle with the rational. Rationality is of utmost importance to Plato, and as such any entreaty to the emotional is seen as dangerous. Johnston argues in his lecture that a closer examination will beget a more complicated and sensitive image of Plato and his view. Johnston maintains that Plato was well aware of art's potency and how it affected even him. Plato uses art often in Republic, and even Republic itself is a work of fiction. Johnston argues that this is indicative of Plato's acceptance that art may indeed be useful for the dissemination of truth and virtue. It strikes me though, that anything Plato has said via his poesis could have as easily been articulated absent fiction. As students and teachers we do not resort to fiction to articulate the meaning behind the allegory of the cave nor Plato's reasoning of Republic. So while Plato did use art, he did not need to. Plato was well aware that he did not live in his ideal city; art may have been currently useful, if still not useful in the ideal city where all citizens could grasp nonfictional articulations of truth and virtue.
What is your interpretation of Plato's view of art? Be sure to mention its relationship with truth and its potential utility in the dissemination thereof. Once you have done this, agree or disagree with Plato and explain why.
Fictions do present actions and events that did not happen; in this way Plato is correct about their divorce from truth. Is he, however, correct that because of this, art and poetry do not, and cannot, depict truth?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Toolkit and Aesthetics
Professor Johnson cleverly posed a Q&A that begins our foray into aesthetics while not prematurely retreating from the Took-kit, and my questions this week will attempt to do the same.
1. You all surely noticed that "aesthetics" despite being a branch of philosophy is not on the cover of the tool-kit, although in the entry "Axiology" the authors inform us that aesthetics does indeed fall into that branch of the philosophical triad. Aesthetic theories, however, often hinge on definitions of key terms, and are often dependent on chiefly epistemological hypotheses. Also, art objects are, by necessity, metaphysical units. Why then, as opposed to ontology and epistemology, is aesthetics relegated to the realm of axiology. Posit possible explanations and then agree or disagree with those explanations.
2. Johnson's question asks you to consider the intellectual virtues, and operating under the opinion that these are vital characteristics, I will do the same. It strikes me (and I very well may be mistaken) that while they are all important to philosophy, some may be more relevant and more useful in the particular practice of aesthetics. Which will serve us the best and which are less important? Or, alternatively, disagree with my base supposition (i.e. that some are more important than others) and demonstrate why.
I posed two questions; while you are only obliged to respond to one, I encourage careful consideration and even response to both.
1. You all surely noticed that "aesthetics" despite being a branch of philosophy is not on the cover of the tool-kit, although in the entry "Axiology" the authors inform us that aesthetics does indeed fall into that branch of the philosophical triad. Aesthetic theories, however, often hinge on definitions of key terms, and are often dependent on chiefly epistemological hypotheses. Also, art objects are, by necessity, metaphysical units. Why then, as opposed to ontology and epistemology, is aesthetics relegated to the realm of axiology. Posit possible explanations and then agree or disagree with those explanations.
2. Johnson's question asks you to consider the intellectual virtues, and operating under the opinion that these are vital characteristics, I will do the same. It strikes me (and I very well may be mistaken) that while they are all important to philosophy, some may be more relevant and more useful in the particular practice of aesthetics. Which will serve us the best and which are less important? Or, alternatively, disagree with my base supposition (i.e. that some are more important than others) and demonstrate why.
I posed two questions; while you are only obliged to respond to one, I encourage careful consideration and even response to both.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Business
Good Afternoon,
I would like to take a very brief moment and mention a few things. If you ever need some extra help, whether that is understanding the reading, whether you are confused about policy, or whether you would like help (those of you who so decide) with your research essay, you can contact me via first class and we can arrange a time to meet. Or, if a particular issue in class was interesting to you and you wish to merely continue the conversation; I am happy in either case to get together and talk.
Furthermore, while Professor Johnson will surely mention this, for those of you who decide to blog, one post per week must be in response to a question that I raise; your other blogs may be about any aesthetically relevant thing you wish. While I am well versed in aesthetics, my fallibility is as objective a truth as you can imagine, so in your response to me, do not take my post as gospel. Important to remember are two things: 1) Two blogs a week will earn you a "C" for blogging; it is the absolute minimum. Honors students, rather any good students, should blog substantially more than that. 2) All blog posts must end with a question. I encourage you to seek out good questions asked by your class mates and uses these as the basis for your elective (The posts not in response to me) blog posts.
Have a fruitful seminar
I would like to take a very brief moment and mention a few things. If you ever need some extra help, whether that is understanding the reading, whether you are confused about policy, or whether you would like help (those of you who so decide) with your research essay, you can contact me via first class and we can arrange a time to meet. Or, if a particular issue in class was interesting to you and you wish to merely continue the conversation; I am happy in either case to get together and talk.
Furthermore, while Professor Johnson will surely mention this, for those of you who decide to blog, one post per week must be in response to a question that I raise; your other blogs may be about any aesthetically relevant thing you wish. While I am well versed in aesthetics, my fallibility is as objective a truth as you can imagine, so in your response to me, do not take my post as gospel. Important to remember are two things: 1) Two blogs a week will earn you a "C" for blogging; it is the absolute minimum. Honors students, rather any good students, should blog substantially more than that. 2) All blog posts must end with a question. I encourage you to seek out good questions asked by your class mates and uses these as the basis for your elective (The posts not in response to me) blog posts.
Have a fruitful seminar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)