AESTHETICSINTRODUCTION 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

• 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 1Step 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 2Step 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

• 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