Q&A #2: Question Two

The other question I had based on this weeks essay was what von Glaserfeld's opinion of how language plays a role in our understanding of reality. Many theorists in language and cultural analysis insist that we live in a world of verbal realism, that is we bring concepts and objects into reality by having terms to signify them. We discussed briefly that things must be brought into the observers reality, so my question is a word or term for a concept enough to include it in our reality according to the author? If someone explains and defines the term God or beauty for me, does  that mean that both have entered my experience and thus are now part of the reality I construct? If this is so what about terms that I simply have not acquired, surely our language and vocabulary develop as we age, so does that mean the reality I create exponentially grows based on the language skills I gain? Its difficult to state my inquiry here so I will try to bring it up in class tomorrow, but if anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear them

Q&A #2: Question One

One of my questions in regards to this weeks reading is how we are using the term and what is considered to be "experience". It seems for the most part we have been using the term to describe tangible and sensory experiences such as observing something visually, coming into contact with solid objects etc. My inquiry would be whether we would consider mental contemplation and cognitive activities such as the imagination, to be forms of experience. For example if I had never heard the term apple, and had never come into contact with one in the material world. One day I hear the term apple and am try to imagine it, the person who uttered the term gives me some terms to help me picture it: red, smooth, round, etc. In my mind I picture a fruit with a striking resemblance to an apple, does this count as experiencing the apple? In the same way when we see a play or film and are moved to tears or drawn to the edge of our seat in fear, are we not experiencing the emotions of the story via the mechanism of imagining ourselves in the narrative? Questions and comments are always welcome so blog on fellow constructors of reality.

Further inofrmation on Coherence

The following link is a brief reading on the Coherence Theory of Truth. I believe it was Heigel and Spinoza which defended the theory so search for some work by them as well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

Q&A #1: Question 2

My second question regarding this week's topic was to respond to Kant's notion that pleasure in the aesthetic is not grounded in nor produces desire. From our reading alone there are several sections in which Zangwill discusses that we seek agreement in our aesthetic judgments, we desire the agreement of other about our claims about beauty. In addition to desiring universal agreement about our claims of beauty, the desire to encounter the beautiful and the aesthetic seems to me to be a plausible theory. Given Kant's support of a priori faculties and abilities in the human mind, would it be untenable to say that people are drawn towards the aesthetic; that we have a natural inclination and desire to seek out the beautiful. While it would be difficult to explain what that inclination would look like, these were just some possible responses I mulled over when rereading the piece for a second time.

More on Recognizing beauty

After our brief discussion about the nature of beauty in last class, I still feel myself leaning towards the idea that beauty itself is a property of an object or experience (although it may be a property determined by its other non aesthetic properties). That would explain why often there is at least some consensus about whether a sunset or painting or song is beautiful; if beauty is a property anyone can recognize and is present in the object, then it would come as little surprise why many can come to same judgement. This would mean however that all people would recognize a present beauty in an object or experience, and given the fact we do have typically have at least one dissenter who disagrees about the beautiful, I have yet to understand why some people would and others would not call something beautiful. Just some thoughts I've been mulling over since last class but I would love to get some feedback if anyone has any comments or questions.

Additional Kant reading

The link provided gives some additional information about Kant's theory on aesthetic judgement and its conditions for those looking for more insight into his theories.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/

Q&A #1: Question One

Question One: Is beauty a property we believe is present within objects or one we assign to an object?

I was intrigued by the notion that we often say something is beautiful as if an object or scene possesses the quality of beauty. However there are situations in which we may look for beauty or may be convinced that to some degree an object or experience is beautiful. It seems similar to our working definitions of art, there are contexts in which we  may not apply the term work of and others might. In the same way it seems that two observers could view a painting and one could state that it is beautiful and the other may disagree. I had always considered beauty to be a property which was recognized or discovered in an object or setting, but it seems that more often we apply the term beauty rather than find it. Questions and Comments always welcome so blog away.