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 Facts Issue Resolution Components Relevant Facts Agreement & Disagreement Resolution of Factual Issues

Ethical Reasoning Concepts Aesthetics/Values Values & Facts 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 Form #1/Form #2 Example

Inductive Arguments Introduction to Inductive Arguments Defined Assessment Strong & Weak Arguments

Analogical Argument Introduction Form Definition Uses 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 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 Moral Vs. Practical Responding   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.

Appeal to Rights (Ethics) Method Responding 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.

Mixing Norms Flawed Method Correct Method Making the Connection 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