SOLUTION: University of California San Diego Harm Principle and Limitations of Freedom Discussion

TOPIC 4 AESTHETICS q Aesthetics is careful delay the bark of art and adornment, twain of which are usually apprehended heart components of a amiable-tempered-tempered mode, a mode of woundonious. q Indeed, the woundonious (concurrently delay the amiable-tempered-tempered and the penny) can plausibly lay arrogation to regularity inherently costly (i.e., at moderationest finally costly, perchance similar intrinsically valuable). WHAT IS ART? q Artworks are very diverse in bark. Consider, for conclusion, the dissonance delayin the so-called fine arts, which include painting, carving, architecture, voice and poetry. q Synchronous art adds a raise flake of diversity. For conclusion, it includes exertions that would traditionally be fancy of (perchance for patriarchal/class concludes?) as dodge rather than art (e.g., photography). Tless is to-boot conceptual art, accomplishment art, massexecuted art (e.g., Warhol-style), atonal music, and so on. Pink Roses, Chinese Vase, by Samuel John Peploe MANIFEST VERSUS NON-MANIFEST PROPERTIES q The apparent properties of an intent are the properties that one can see (colour, texture, etc). q The non-apparent properties are the properties that one cannot see. This includes muddy intellectual properties, such as that the painting was executed by Picasso (rather than a useful faker). q Traditionally, art was defined in stipulations of its apparent properties, but especially when it comes to synchronous art the non-manifest properties to-boot show pertinent. Still Life, by Samuel John Peploe FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF ART q One way of defining art in stipulations of its nonapparent properties is by doing so in stipulations of its administration. q The administration of notability is a non-manifest property owing you cannot normally recognize true by perceiving an ace what its administration is. In material-matter, you usually absence to recognize notability encircling the intentions of the idiosyncratic who made that intent, or at moderationest notability encircling how that intent is really used. Self-Portrait, by J. D. Fergusson FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF ART q So one administsober statement of art is that it is that which is purposed to summon aesthetic experiences. (This is roughly the statement offered by Monroe Beardsley (1915-1985)). q But of career lots of things can discharge this constraint which don’t show to be art, attachment table-settings or haircuts. q Moreover, some synchronous art is specifically purposed to horrify, discommode, disgust etc. (It is ‘anti-aesthetic’). My Bed, by Tracey Emin PROCEDURAL DEFINITIONS OF ART q Question: how does a participation of Nursing essay become money, and lesssucceeding accept a esteem that transcends the esteem of the Nursing essay? The reply relates to how a incontrovertible institutional performance deliberates that esteem. q George Dickies’ (1926-) institutional weigh-downt of art works concurrently correspondent lines, arguing that an artefact becomes art via an institutional act whereby this lasting if won (roughly, a limb of the art cosmos-vulgar puts obtrusive the artereality as regularity pure of appreciation). John Fisher, by Paul Hodgson PROCEDURAL DEFINITIONS OF ART q One collection delay this statement is that it is hazard of regularity incredibly unreserved. Can anyone self-identify as a limb of the art cosmos-vulgar and thereby deliberate this lasting on an artefact? And if so, then in what discernment is this at all consanguineous to the reckoned coincidence delay other institutional conferrings of lasting (I can wheedle a participation of Nursing essay a $100 bill as ample as I attachment, but this doesn’t perfashion it so). q Alternatively, if one does address to a complete interpretation of the art cosmos-vulgar (e.g., one has to accept a incontrovertible complete training, or recognised lasting in the arena), then the statement looks too costive. Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp A DILEMMA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNT q Richard Wollheim (1923-2003) posed an controlling difficulty for Dickies’ institutional statement of art (in his bulk, Art and its Objects). q On the one operative, if the professor has amiable-tempered dogged concludes for proposing incontrovertible artefacts as regularity pure of moveing, then we can address to those concludes to illustrate why the artereality constitutes art. On this horn of the dilemma, the institutional act of the professor is redundant. q On the other operative, if the professor doesn’t accept amiable-tempered-tempered dogged concludes for proposing incontrovertible artefacts as regularity pure of moveing, then this mode shows entirely arbitrary. In material-matter, we waste any barkred betwixt art and amiable-tempered-tempered art. ANTI-ESSENTIALISM q Perchance the inferential to be drawn from the sooner is that it is lost to Nursing essay a weigh-downt of art. In particular, perchance it is in the very bark of art to be immune to a weigh-downt. This is anti-essentialism. q One conclude for anti-essentialism is the Wittgenstenian conception that muddy (all?) of our most controlling concepts are immune to weigh-downt, and are rather best understood as race representation concepts (compare: the concept of a pastime). q This character of lie has been elaborated by Morris Weitz (1916-1981). Paul Hodgson, working in his studio AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q Aesthetic experiment is not poor to the experiment of art, past it to-boot applies to appreciations of intrinsic adornment (and deformity). q Do aesthetic experiments accept a unified bark? (This is notorious as the doubt of unification). q Or are tless instead diverse types of aesthetic experience, delay no unconcealed unified bark? Hospital Auxiliare d’Armee 301, by Nora Neilson Gray AN ACCOUNT OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q Historically forcible, one controlling statement of aesthetic experiment essentially accords it five features. q They are: (i) involving, or at moderationest relative upon, perception; (ii) merry; (iii) non-cognitive (i.e., immediate, delay no sober conclusion confused); (iv) non-practical; and (v) costly for its own conclude. q All five modes are controversial. Girl in a Red Coat, by Anne Redpath AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q The original mode is controversial depending on how one apprehends the role of sight in aesthetic experiment. According to aesthetic formalism, as protected for conclusion by Clive Bell (1881-1964), aesthetic experiment exclusively depends upon properties seed via the senses. q But this is collectionatic, as the very similar artereality can engender very irrelative aesthetic experiences, depending on how we avenue it. (A material-material famously made by Arthur Danto (1924-2013)). La Mitrailleuse, by C. R. W. Nevinson AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q The relieve mode is controversial owing aesthetic experiment is not onesided to the feeling of the woundonious, but can to-boot engage to the unsightly (and to the challenging, the sickening, the disturbing etc). q Could one indicate that similar these aesthetic experiences are in a discernment merry (as when, for conclusion, one gets a dumbfounder from watching a horror film)? q But what encircling aesthetic experiments which are essentially severed (or is this not undeveloped)? Mr. Wyndham Lewis as a Tyro, by John Wyndham Lewis AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q The third mode is controversial owing of the subject-material made antecedent respecting aesthetic completeism— viz., that an aesthetic experiment repeatedly includes a lot over than true an contiguous sight of an artefact. q But perchance we can settle this material-material by saying that although backconclude comprehension force be pertinent to the bark of aesthetic experiment that one has, the aesthetic experiment itself is contiguous and thus includes no yarn. View From the Mound, by William Crozier AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE q The fifth mode is controversial for correspondent reasons, in that true as we force judge that some aesthetic experiments are concludeed in serviceoperative or inferential desires, so one force judge that the esteem of at moderationest some aesthetic experiments can be instrumental rather than final/intrinsic. q But perchance the way to instruct this conclusion is to say that time we force esteem aesthetic experiment in instrumental ways, the reality recrement that in adlawful to be an aesthetic experiment we should nonetheless esteem it for its own conclude. (But similar so, can one not remained aesthetically severed?) Leo Tolstoy AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q What is the sympathy betwixt aesthetic judgements and aesthetic experiments? In particular, can one accept one delayout the other? q It does very ample show so. An aesthetic judgement can be culm, for example, in which inspecimen tless force not be any similar aesthetic experiment. q Aesthetic judgements can to-boot be denying, time on some lights of aesthetic experiment the death is essentially merry (and lesssucceeding real). Buster Keaton, (tranquil from Steamboat Bill, Jr. 1928) AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q Aesthetic judgements to-boot show to include far over by way cognition. One force absence to recognize a grand communicate encircling fine art, for conclusion, in adlawful to fashion some barks of aesthetic judgement. q Relatedly, aesthetic judgements can be ample richer in gratified than the similar aesthetic experiments. The death force true include an moveing of an artwork’s adornment, time the fashioner could solder a elaborate statement of why it is woundonious. Donne Tahitiane Sdraiate, by Paul Gauguin AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q Are tless any intentive standards for aesthetic judgements? Initially, one would judge not. Suppose I judge that a painting is woundonious and you judge that it is unsightly. Would we move that tless ought to be an intentive reality of the material respecting which of us is exact (as, e.g., tless is in test)? q And yet we do casually indicate encircling aesthetics, and unfailingly we to-boot manage some vulgar as having special cheerfulise in this arena, which suggests that tless is at moderationest some bark of intentivity that is applicoperative to this territory. Deadpan, by Steve McQueen AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q According to David Hume (1711-1776), in his famous essay ‘Of the Standard of Taste’ (1757), we could theoretically realityor out the concentratively distorting influences which manage to aesthetic disagreement so that a assembly begins to show in our aesthetic judgements. q In material-matter, a acceptably serviceoperative judge, or at moderationest a group of judges, could concentrate on an aesthetic judgement which would be the embezzle one to draw. q But is this at all specious? Untitled No. 66, by Cindy Sherman AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q A cognate conclusion less is how aesthetic judgements are cognate to the basic, non-aesthetic, properties of the intent regularity judged. Does a incontrovertible set of non-aesthetic properties (shape, composition, colour etc) mention an embezzle aesthetic judgement (i.e., in one who is acceptably aesthetically refined and regardful)? q Hume shows to judge that this force be undeveloped. (Kant, in dissimilarity, didn’t). AESTHETIC JUDGEMENTS q One conclude to judge that the non-aesthetic properties of an intent cannot mention an embezzle aesthetic judgement by themselves is that an intent’s intellectual properties to-boot show to be at moderationest casually pertinent to aesthetic judgement. q For conclusion, apprehend two physically identical paintings, one which was executed by the professor, the other which is a delineation (perchance not similar by a human operative, but by a deed). Would our aesthetic judgement of them be the similar? AESTHETIC TESTIMONY q Tless shows to be a cwaste sympathy betwixt aesthetic judgement and aesthetic experiment at meanest to the degree that one’s aesthetic judgements must be installed in one’s own aesthetic experiments and not the aesthetic experiments of others (this is notorious as the acquaintance element). q In material-matter, wouldn’t tless be notability very odd encircling concludeing one’s aesthetic judgements in someone else’s aesthetic corroboration? (E.g., I arrogation to attachment the novels of Patricia Highsmith, although I haven’t recognize any of them but accept solely heard the corroboration of others encircling their character). AESTHETIC TESTIMONY q And yet, if tless can be aesthetic cheerfuls, then wouldn’t it be meliorate to fashion my aesthetic judgements domiciled on their aesthetic corroboration rather than on my own aesthetic experiments? q One notion of what is going on less is that tless are incontrovertible territorys wless importation originalidiosyncratic service for one’s judgements shows particularly controlling. For conclusion, time there force courteous be collective or immaterial cheerfuls, ultimately one absences to engage idiosyncratical occupation of one’s own immaterial and collective opinions. AESTHETIC TESTIMONY q A cognate fancy is that incontrovertible territorys are over coexistent delay relieve-operative comprehension than others. q Tless is, for conclusion, nonentity scant encircling me as a idiosyncratic if I pick-out to duty the cheerfuls encircling a scientific territory attachment air transmute rather than becoming an cheerful myself (mode is brief, succeeding all). q But tless is notability scant encircling me as a idiosyncratic if I’m disposed to merely duty the cheerfuls encircling a territory attachment ethics or aesthetics, rather than exertioning out what my own specimen should be. (Though note that this is coexistent delay my light nonetheless regularity informed by cheerful corroboration). TOPIC 3 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY q Collective philosophy focusses on indispensoperative doubts encircling the bark of the state and empire, and the sympathys betwixt idiosyncraticals delayin these settings. q In this member we are going to be focussing on three aspects of collective philosophy: insubservience, trueice, and global trueice. DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF FREEDOM q The ‘insubservience of the ageds’ (Benjamin Constant, 1767-1830): insubservience is not understood partially, but rather in stipulations of groups (e.g., the insubservience of the city). q This is dissimilarity to the ‘insubservience of the moderns’, which is specifically understood concurrently idiosyncraticalist lines. q Real insubservience: the (individual) insubservience to terminate our goals. q Denying insubservience: (individual) insubservience from coercion and suspension from others. q Kant on insubservience: although we cannot demonstrate through conclude queer that we are unoccupied, it is solely on the self-assertion that we are unoccupied that the cosmos-vulgar is intelligible to us. FREEDOM AND REAL CHOICE q Insubservience implies precious. But how pure should those preciouss be? q Are we unoccupied to act inadequately if we accept a gun at our crown? q The intrinsic reply is ‘no’, but Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) famously indicated otherwise. His material-material is that one could pick-out to oversight the gunman, similar though this is lucidly an unpalatoperative precious. q This interpretation of insubservience is controversial owing it breaks the add betwixt insubservience and service. (We do not support vulgar obligatory for doing things when they accept a gun at their crown). FREEDOM AND REAL CHOICE q A cognate conclusion less is whether over precious media over insubservience. q One force judge so. But what if the non-interferences available, time muddy, are all very correspondent (e.g., lots of irrelative intelligencepapers, but they all carry essentially the similar intelligence)? q Or what if the non-interferences advantageous, time muddy, are all bad for you (e.g., lots of irrelative brands of cigarettes)? FREEDOM AND THE ABILITY TO DO OTHERWISE q Insubservience implies precious. But does it indicate the ability to do inadequately than one in reality does? One force judge that it must moderation this, in that if one couldn’t accept acted inadequately, then how could one be unoccupied? q But this arrogation has been wheedleed into doubt by Harry Frankfurt (1929-). He imagines instances wless one selects a material-material non-interference, but wless one would accept been frustrateed from doing inadequately. His material-matter is that in such a instance, one is unoccupiedly choosing to do what one conciliate be required to do anyway. q It is consanguineous to an addict who relishs her addiction, as opposed to one who doesn’t. Harry Frankfurt (1929-) POSITIVE FREEDOM q Unattachment denying insubservience, which is insubservience from restraint or coercion, real insubservience is the insubservience to terminate our goals and discharge our undeveloped. q For conclusion, having an praiseworthy soundness service enhances our real insubservience, by enabling us to live meliorate lives. q But does it material to real insubservience which goals are regularity dischargeled (and in material-material whether they are worthtime goals)? T. H. Green (1836-1882) POSITIVE FREEDOM q One idiosyncratic who fancy that the esteem of the goals was controlling was T H. Green (1836-1882). For conclusion, he campaigned for a ban on the sale of alcohol as he claimed it would advance our real insubservience. q This exposes how a interpretation of real insubservience can manage to the incapability of precious. But is this so counterintuitive? Succeeding all, a amiable-tempered-tempered counsel system force be sharp for our real insubservience, and yet in adlawful to be paid for it requires taxation, which effectively limits our non-interferences in other areas. (More unconcealedly, having T. H. Green (1836-1882) a empire and regularity material to the government of law can enhance our real insubservience). NEGATIVE FREEDOM q As the indicate suggests, denying insubservience is defined in stipulations of what it isn’t. It moderations regularity unoccupied from coercion or suspension from other vulgar. q One of the most controlling defenders of denying freedom—and judges of real insubservience—was Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-97). He indicated that real insubservience confused insubservience delay other esteems, such as echaracter or justice. For conclusion, unoccupied counsel may perfashion society over true or similar, but that doesn’t leave that it performs it any over unoccupied. Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-97) NEGATIVE FREEDOM q One of the collections that faces defences of denying insubservience is that it shows to favour the privileged. q It force exertion very courteous for the monied to be unoccupied from coercion and suspension, but in performance the less courteous off are not so happy, as they absence to refer to the authority of others in adlawful to relish the amiable-tempereds that the monied accept straightforward entrance to. q Of career, strictly forcible, they are not regularity coerced, as they gratuitously penetrate in these sympathys. But is tless a pure precious less? Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-97) REPUBLICAN FREEDOM q Oligarchical insubservience is a interpretation of insubservience installed in ideas set-up in aged Rome, and in material-material the Roman republic. q It revolves encircling the conception that insubservience essentially consists in stay on one’s own stipulations, rather than regularity material to the conciliate of another. q Defenders of oligarchical insubservience castaway the conception that all coercion or suspension renders us unfree. For if this were so, then laws (e.g., over slay) would be contrary to our insubservience. Philip Pettit (1945-) REPUBLICAN FREEDOM q Defenders of oligarchical insubservience, such as Philip Pettit (1945-), indicate that through notorious election (e.g., via destructive modees) we are operative to fashion a reasoned, shared light encircling the limits to our activities. q This is held not to be a weigh-downt of our insubservience, but rather to set the boundaries respecting what we are unoccupied to do. q In adlawful to apprehend why this isn’t a weigh-downt of our insubservience, it would be worth remembering Frankfurt’s material-material encircling insubservience regularity choosing what one wants (similar if one couldn’t accept clarified inadequately). Similarly, according to defenders of oligarchical insubservience, the laws that weigh-down us are in a discernment our laws. THE HARM PRINCIPLE q One idiosyncratic who has genial to fashionulate a unconcealed element encircling when it is fair to clash delay another’s unoccupied exercise is J. S. Mill (1806-1873), in his famous exertion On Liberty (1859). q He indicated that it was solely fair to clash delay another’s unoccupied exercise if this would frustrate wound to others. Accordingly, this is notorious as the wound element. q In material-matter, regard that on this light it is not fair to clash delay another’s unoccupied exercise owing it is that person’s best interests (e.g., as when one frustrates a suicide). Mill is thus arguing over a fashion of collective paternalism. J. S. Mill (1806-1873) THE HARM PRINCIPLE q So, for conclusion, if I absence to disburse my days doing activities which others judge are anti-social (such as getting prejudiced), then no-one has a fair plea to clash, so desire as I don’t wound anyone else in the mode. q The collection for this scheme arises unintermittently we begin to apprehend what constitutes a wound to others. My anti-social behaviour force courteous fall you, for conclusion. Is that not a harm, and if so, can it be used to violate my behaviour? q And what encircling explicitly woundful activities that are ...
Purchase reply to see full attachment

Source add