AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION TO AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION TO AESTHETICS What

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 • • Aesthetics/Values • • • Relevant Concepts Agreement & Disagreement Resolution of Conceptual Issues 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 4 A: If Y outweighs Z, then conclude that X is morally unacceptable. Step 4 B: If Z outweighs Y, then conclude that X is morally acceptable. • Moral Vs. Practical • Responding

APPEAL TO RIGHTS (ETHICS) • 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