AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION TO AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION TO AESTHETICS
• What is Aesthetics?
• Aesthetics
• Some Questions
• Normative
INTRODUCTION TO AESTHETICS
•
Spectrum of Aesthetics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Absolutism
Objectivism
Relativism
Subjectivism
Moral Nihilism
Moral Skepticism
Aestheticians, Art Critics and Artists
AESTHETICS REASONING
• Statements of Value vs Statements of Fact
•
•
•
•
•
Value Statements/matters of value
Factual statements/matters of fact
Objective and subjective statements
Objective-subjective dispute
Non-objectivity and reasoning
AESTHETICS REASONING
•
Aesthetic Issue
•
•
•
•
•
Issue
Aesthetic Issue
Resolution
Components
Facts
•
•
•
Relevant Facts
Agreement & Disagreement
Resolution of Factual Issues
ETHICAL REASONING
• Concepts
• Relevant Concepts
• Agreement & Disagreement
• Resolution of Conceptual Issues
• Aesthetics/Values
• Morality
• Resolution
• Values & Facts
• Value Statements/Matters of Value
• Factual Statements/Matters of Fact
ETHICAL REASONING
• Objectivity & Subjectivity
• Objective Statement
• Subjective Statement
• Objective-Subjective Dispute
ARGUMENT BASICS
ARGUMENT BASICS
• Argument Concepts
• Defined
• General Assessment: Reasoning
• General Assessment: Are the Premises True?
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
• Introduction to Deductive Arguments
•
•
•
•
Defined
Use
Assessment
Valid/Invalid, Sound/Unsound
• Some Common Valid Deductive Arguments
• Reductio Ad Adsurdum
• Defined
• Form #1/Form #2
• Example
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
• Introduction to Inductive Arguments
• Defined
• Assessment
• Strong & Weak Arguments
ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT
• Introduction
• Definition
• Uses
• Form
• Informal
• Strict Form
•
•
•
•
Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.
Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.
Premise 3: X has property Z as well.
Conclusion: Y has property Z.
ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT
• Assessment
• The strength of the argument depends on
•
•
•
The number of properties X & Y have in common.
The relevance of the shared properties to Z.
Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.
• Example
ARGUMENT FROM/BY EXAMPLE
•
Introduction
•
•
Defined
Form
•
•
Informal
Form
Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P.
Premise 2: Example 2 is an example that supports claim P.
Premise n: Example n is an example that supports claim C.
Conclusion: Claim P is true.
ARGUMENT FROM/BY EXAMPLE
• Standards of Assessment
• Standards
•
•
•
•
The more examples, the stronger the argument.
The examples must be relevant.
The examples must be specific & clearly identified.
Counter-examples must be considered.
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
• Introduction
• Defined
• Use
• Form
• Premise 1: Person A is an authority on subject S.
• Premises 2: Person A makes claim C about subject S.
• Premises 3: Therefore, C is true.
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
• Assessment
• Standards
•
•
•
•
•
•
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject.
The claim is within the expert’s area of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among experts.
The expert is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority must be properly cited.
LOGICAL CONSISTENCY(GENERAL)
• Concepts & Method
• Responding
• Ethical Relativism, Subjectivism & Nihilism
CONSISTENT APPLICATION
(NORMATIVE)
• Concepts, Assumptions & Method
• Responding
REVERSING THE SITUATION(ETHICS)
• Method
• Considerations
• Responding
ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (GENERAL)
• Method
• Assessing Definitions
• Responding
APPEAL TO INTUITION
• Method
• Responding
APPEAL TO
CONSEQUENCES(NORMATIVE)
•
Method
Step 1: Show that action, policy, etc. X creates Y harms and Z benefits.
Step 2: Weigh and assess Y and Z.
Step 3: Argue that moral assessment is based on the consequences of actions.
Step 4A: If Y outweighs Z, then conclude that X is morally unacceptable.
Step 4B: If Z outweighs Y, then conclude that X is morally acceptable.
•
•
Moral Vs. Practical
Responding
APPEAL TO RIGHTS (ETHICS)
• Method
Method 1
Step 1: Argue for right Y.
Step 2: Argue that. X violates (or does not violate) right Y.
Step 3: Conclude that X is not morally acceptable (or is acceptable).
Method 2
Step 1: Argue for right Y.
Step 2: Argue that. X is required by right Y.
Step 3: Conclude that X is morally obligatory.
• Responding
MIXING NORMS
• Flawed Method
• Flawed Step 1: X has status S in normative area Y.
• Flawed Step 2: Therefore X should have the comparable status to S in
normative area Z.
• Correct Method
• Step 1: X has status S in normative area Y.
• Step 2: Premise or Argument connecting area Y and normative area Z.
• Step 3: Therefore X should have the comparable status to S in normative
area Z.
• Making the Connection
• Responding
APPLYING AESTHETIC PRINCIPLES
• Method
• Sample Principles
• Responding
• Art & Non-Art
APPLYING AESTHETIC THEORIES
• Method
• Responding