(four good attempts)
‘Tabula rasa’ meaning blank slate, is the thought that the human mind has no innate knowledge...
It is an empirical epistemological view
Tabula rasa shows that memories and truths are established ‘a posteriori’, or through experience.
The physical world writes upon the blank slate of the mind, establishing faint memories of the ‘bright and vivid’ real thing.
This view was first put forward by Locke in his book ‘An Essay Concerning The Human Mind’
Another concept of this thought is that imaginary images are established through comparing things already written upon your mind . Hume used the example of a golden mountain. Although no-one has ever seen a golden mountain, most people have seen mountains and gold. Therefore, these images are combined to create the image of a golden mountain.
This implies that you cannot imagine what you cannot create from your own memories, reinforcing the ‘Tabula rasa’ view, as you can only create through experience .
___________________________________________________________
The view that the mind is born a tabula rasa is the idea that it is born a blank slate with no knowledge at all. This view dates back as far as Aristotle who described the mind as an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. A more recent philosopher, Locke, also believed in this theory. He believed that our experiences of the physical world write upon the blank slate and this is how we obtain knowledge. ’A posteriori’ is a truth gained through experience and the idea of empiricism suggests that these experiences are through our senses.
However, it was suggested that knowledge cannot only be obtained through our sensory experiences as we have knowledge of things that we can’t possibly have experienced. A philosopher who responded to this was Hume . He believed that our experiences of the physical world were ‘vivid and forceful’ and our ideas of that world are ‘faint and obscure’ He suggested that our knowledge is made up of our ideas of the physical world which we have through experience, OR our mind combines two of our ideas which makes an idea of something we haven’t necessarily experienced.
Hume used the idea of a ‘golden mountain’. It is clear that none of us have physically experienced a Golden Mountain , yet we can imagine it. This is because we have experienced gold and a mountain separately and our mind is simply merging them together.
All these theories are examples of empiricism, which is the suggestion that knowledge is gained through experiences of the physical world. (I wish this sentence specifically linked back to the ‘tabula rasa’ issue raised in the question )
______________________________________________________
The view that the mind was a tabula rasa was first mentioned by Aristotle over 2 thousand years ago when he described the new born mind as a blank slate. This view was later adopted by the two british empiricists Locke and Hume. Locke wrote a book on the subject and Hume followed by saying that ideas in the mind are formed by impressions of the real world or by the combination of impressions eg gold and mountain – gold mountain.
The main argument about tabula rasa is that your behaviour and knowledge is not formed by nature (you are not born with it) but that it is instead nurtured and learned )(how you are brought up) . The main theory is that when you are born you know nothing.’ Tabula rasa’ is part of an empirical approach to epistemology where ideas are viewed as ‘a posteriori’.
Tabula Rasa is a completely contradictory idea to the rationalist movement, who believe that we are given certain, basic knowledge when we are born.
___________________________________________________________
Tabula rasa or blank slate is how empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, describe the human mind from birth. The world then writes itself upon this slate. Empiricists reject the view that we have innate ideas. The epistemological approach is empiricism and it says all of our knowledge is gained through our experiences and physical sensations of the world, in other words ‘a posteriori’ knowledge.
Aristotle was the first to compare the mind to an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. Hume came up with the ‘golden mountain ‘ analogy. He said that we have sensed gold and a mountain, so they are in our knowledge. We can then cross-reference these two ideas to imagine what a golden mountain would be like, by reflecting upon previous experience.
Another such experiment would be that of a feral child such as in the book by Ibn Tufail, and whether this child had ideas of things like God without being exposed to or experiencing them. The tabula rasa approach is similar to that of the nurture argument – that our morals come from experience rather than instincts or nature.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Monday, 17 May 2010
strengths of the notion that the idea of God is innate
Name: Ontological Argument
Explain: Descartes and Anselm set out two arguments that proved God must exist
Illustrate: Descartes arguments premise is that god is a supremely perfect being, he then says that existence is a necessary quality of perfection, so comes to the conclusion that god must exist. Anselm’s version of the argument starts with the premise that God is the greatest conceivable being, and to be the greatest conceivable being must exist so therefore god must exist as otherwise he would not be as perfect as something that did.
Link: This is a strength of the notion that the idea of god is innate because we cannot experience the idea of god, but it must exist so is therefore innate.
Name: The trademark argument
Explain: This argument shows that god left some ideas in us, so the idea of god must be innate
Illustrate: The argument is as follows: Premise: i have an idea-----it didn't come to me through my senses------- I didn't make it up--------- i must have been born with it----- Something must have caused it to be there when i was born-------- That which causes something must have the attributes of that which it causes------Therefore the idea is perfect and thus the cause of the idea must be perfect------- Perfection = God
Link: This view proves that the idea of god is innate
or
One of the main arguments for idea of God being innate is the ‘trademark argument’ (Descartes)
It is argued that we have the knowledge of God that wasn’t experienced through senses and wasn’t made up. We cannot make God up because he is prefect by definition thus he cannot be imagined and we could not add or subtract to this idea of God. Therefore the only other solution of my knowledge of god is that I must have been born with it. God must be innate because we haven’t sensually experienced God and it is also impossible to have made him up.
Explain: Descartes and Anselm set out two arguments that proved God must exist
Illustrate: Descartes arguments premise is that god is a supremely perfect being, he then says that existence is a necessary quality of perfection, so comes to the conclusion that god must exist. Anselm’s version of the argument starts with the premise that God is the greatest conceivable being, and to be the greatest conceivable being must exist so therefore god must exist as otherwise he would not be as perfect as something that did.
Link: This is a strength of the notion that the idea of god is innate because we cannot experience the idea of god, but it must exist so is therefore innate.
Name: The trademark argument
Explain: This argument shows that god left some ideas in us, so the idea of god must be innate
Illustrate: The argument is as follows: Premise: i have an idea-----it didn't come to me through my senses------- I didn't make it up--------- i must have been born with it----- Something must have caused it to be there when i was born-------- That which causes something must have the attributes of that which it causes------Therefore the idea is perfect and thus the cause of the idea must be perfect------- Perfection = God
Link: This view proves that the idea of god is innate
or
One of the main arguments for idea of God being innate is the ‘trademark argument’ (Descartes)
It is argued that we have the knowledge of God that wasn’t experienced through senses and wasn’t made up. We cannot make God up because he is prefect by definition thus he cannot be imagined and we could not add or subtract to this idea of God. Therefore the only other solution of my knowledge of god is that I must have been born with it. God must be innate because we haven’t sensually experienced God and it is also impossible to have made him up.
problems with intelligent design
Name: Evolution
Explain: The world was not designed for us, we simply evolved to fit it
Illustrate: Evolution is the theory that we have evolved to fit into our environments by genetic mutations, and that the beneficial mutations were passed on and that where the mutated creatures survived more they reproduced and survived more so eventually the whole species had the favourable mutation.
Link: If this is the case then it shows that intelligent design is not true and that we simply adapted to the world. So it seems that it was designed for us as we are adapted to it and it was in fact not designed for us.
Name: Chance
Explain: There is a chance that the world is only suited to sustain our life because of chance
Illustrate: For example there is a huge amount of possible universes which could support life so ours could be one of these and we do not know it, so we are only able to survive because by chance our planet fits our needs. Lots of species also evolved before humans and then died out which shows that our species has only survived because by chance we are able to adapt to our environments when previous species for example dinosaurs could not.
Link: This is a problem for intelligent design because it is probable that the world only suits us by chance, so weakens the intelligent design argument.
or
N – A problem with intelligent design is the argument against it which is evolution.
E – Evolution is a scientific theory and the most credible belief of how we come to be so fitting for the world. This is a naturalistic explanation of how we over time have adopted and kept the most favourable mutations that are more likely to help us survive and reproduce.
I – For instance food was on trees and the species of animals could not reach it to eat, so to survive over generations they adapted by genetic mutation. They grew long necks, in order to live in their environment.
L – A problem with intelligent design is there is more of a credible and naturalistic argument to how we survive in this world.
N – Another problem with intelligent design is it lacks evidence.
E – There is no real scientific testing done and it does not follow scientific methodology, there isn’t testing and any definite predictions based on this theory. Also there is no real consistency to who the designer is, a design that has been made must have a designer.
I – Most people believe that the God of classical theism is the designer, but there could really there is no real way of discovering what or who and if there is a designer of this world.
L – Intelligent Design lacks support because there is no real evidence supporting this theory
Explain: The world was not designed for us, we simply evolved to fit it
Illustrate: Evolution is the theory that we have evolved to fit into our environments by genetic mutations, and that the beneficial mutations were passed on and that where the mutated creatures survived more they reproduced and survived more so eventually the whole species had the favourable mutation.
Link: If this is the case then it shows that intelligent design is not true and that we simply adapted to the world. So it seems that it was designed for us as we are adapted to it and it was in fact not designed for us.
Name: Chance
Explain: There is a chance that the world is only suited to sustain our life because of chance
Illustrate: For example there is a huge amount of possible universes which could support life so ours could be one of these and we do not know it, so we are only able to survive because by chance our planet fits our needs. Lots of species also evolved before humans and then died out which shows that our species has only survived because by chance we are able to adapt to our environments when previous species for example dinosaurs could not.
Link: This is a problem for intelligent design because it is probable that the world only suits us by chance, so weakens the intelligent design argument.
or
N – A problem with intelligent design is the argument against it which is evolution.
E – Evolution is a scientific theory and the most credible belief of how we come to be so fitting for the world. This is a naturalistic explanation of how we over time have adopted and kept the most favourable mutations that are more likely to help us survive and reproduce.
I – For instance food was on trees and the species of animals could not reach it to eat, so to survive over generations they adapted by genetic mutation. They grew long necks, in order to live in their environment.
L – A problem with intelligent design is there is more of a credible and naturalistic argument to how we survive in this world.
N – Another problem with intelligent design is it lacks evidence.
E – There is no real scientific testing done and it does not follow scientific methodology, there isn’t testing and any definite predictions based on this theory. Also there is no real consistency to who the designer is, a design that has been made must have a designer.
I – Most people believe that the God of classical theism is the designer, but there could really there is no real way of discovering what or who and if there is a designer of this world.
L – Intelligent Design lacks support because there is no real evidence supporting this theory
problems with analogy
N – A problem with analogy argument is that we as human beings have no experience of world making.
E – We cannot reasonably claim that our world has been made because we have nothing of a similar making to compare it; we have not experience worlds being made. We can however do this with most objects because we can compare them to other manufactured objects. But e cannot use these objects to justify the creation and design of the earth.
I – From understanding and observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything about the creation of man/woman?
L – Analogy isn’t coherent because, just because there is objects that have been designed (like a watch), they cannot justify the design of the world because we have no other experience of a designed universe.
N – It can also be argued that the arguments for analogy are weak.
E – The argument for analogy is that the world is designed just like a machine. Hume however argues that this is not a correct comparison because the world is far greater and more complex than a machine.
I – it is more sensible to compare the world to an animal or a plant, in the sense that a plant just grows and has not been designed. This example is still flawed though as to make comparisons they have to be alike in all relevant ways.
L – There are flaws with analogy because we cannot compare the complex world which we do not totally understand with something that isn’t a relevant comparison
or
Explains: Arguments from analogies are only reliable when the things being compared are similar.
Illustrate: Paley’s watch analogy is weak. Because a watch does not have many similarities to the universe. Hume argued that a better analogy would in fact be a vegetable because the earth is organic, like a vegetable and not mechanical like a watch. It would also be a better analogy because vegetables just grow and are not designed and we have no reason to suppose the universe is designed so this would be a better analogy. Hume said that the vegetable analogy was equally flawed but that we cannot infer on the basis of an analogy with a machine that the universe was designed.
Link: This is a problem because there are no good analogies to fit the universe so all arguments using analogies in this area will be weak.
E – We cannot reasonably claim that our world has been made because we have nothing of a similar making to compare it; we have not experience worlds being made. We can however do this with most objects because we can compare them to other manufactured objects. But e cannot use these objects to justify the creation and design of the earth.
I – From understanding and observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything about the creation of man/woman?
L – Analogy isn’t coherent because, just because there is objects that have been designed (like a watch), they cannot justify the design of the world because we have no other experience of a designed universe.
N – It can also be argued that the arguments for analogy are weak.
E – The argument for analogy is that the world is designed just like a machine. Hume however argues that this is not a correct comparison because the world is far greater and more complex than a machine.
I – it is more sensible to compare the world to an animal or a plant, in the sense that a plant just grows and has not been designed. This example is still flawed though as to make comparisons they have to be alike in all relevant ways.
L – There are flaws with analogy because we cannot compare the complex world which we do not totally understand with something that isn’t a relevant comparison
or
Explains: Arguments from analogies are only reliable when the things being compared are similar.
Illustrate: Paley’s watch analogy is weak. Because a watch does not have many similarities to the universe. Hume argued that a better analogy would in fact be a vegetable because the earth is organic, like a vegetable and not mechanical like a watch. It would also be a better analogy because vegetables just grow and are not designed and we have no reason to suppose the universe is designed so this would be a better analogy. Hume said that the vegetable analogy was equally flawed but that we cannot infer on the basis of an analogy with a machine that the universe was designed.
Link: This is a problem because there are no good analogies to fit the universe so all arguments using analogies in this area will be weak.
weaknesses of the idea that god is a psychological projection
N – One weakness is that the philosophers, who give these psychological projection theories, make it very offensive to religious believers.
E – Freud argued that god was a psychological process made by neurotic anxiety. He said that God derived from fear and guilt. Guilt of man and collective guilt that we have from what our ancestors did. This is insulting because his theories suggest that we were, murderers, involved in incest and that we took part in cannibalism.
I – Freud’s theories were that during the Oedipus complex man wanted to kill his father and be with his mother. The collective guilt comes from the fact as a ‘race’ we carry the guilt of when our ancestors killed and ate the primal father.
L – This is a weakness of god being a psychological project because why should we feel guilty for something that we ourselves did not commit, and it is offensive to be told that when man was younger they wanted to kill their own fathers.
or
Name: Lack of universal Assent
Explain: Philosophers disagree on what psychological projection god is. Lots of philosophers say god is a psychological projection, however they all say different things to each other
Illustrate: Nietzsche said god and religion are an expression of the desire of oppressed people for revenge. But Freud said that god came about through guilt for our 'Oedipus complex' which means we have guilt for wanting to kill our fathers when we were younger, because we thought they would castrate us as rivals. And Marx also thought god was a different psychological projection he said that god was 'the opiate of the masses' and that god was a psychological projection to give hope to the oppressed.
Link: This is a weakness with the idea that God is a psychological projection, because people cannot agree on what psychological projection God is so this gives doubt to the argument that God is simply a psychological projection.
Name: Offensive
Explain: The view that god is a psychological projection is very offensive.
Illustrate: For example Marx said that that religion and god was only a tool to keep the exploited and the exploiters in their respective roles, and this is very offensive if you are a religious person. Nietzsche was also intentionally very offensive and provocative as he said that religion is a 'slave' morality and that it is born out of a thirst for revenge people in poverty have against their oppressors. Freud’s claim about god being a psychological projection is also very offensive as what he calls 'the Oedipus complex' implies that we want to have sex with our mothers and castrate our fathers. This is very offensive to most people.
Link: This is a weakness because it gives the claim less credibility as it sets out to be offensive and controversial.
E – Freud argued that god was a psychological process made by neurotic anxiety. He said that God derived from fear and guilt. Guilt of man and collective guilt that we have from what our ancestors did. This is insulting because his theories suggest that we were, murderers, involved in incest and that we took part in cannibalism.
I – Freud’s theories were that during the Oedipus complex man wanted to kill his father and be with his mother. The collective guilt comes from the fact as a ‘race’ we carry the guilt of when our ancestors killed and ate the primal father.
L – This is a weakness of god being a psychological project because why should we feel guilty for something that we ourselves did not commit, and it is offensive to be told that when man was younger they wanted to kill their own fathers.
or
Name: Lack of universal Assent
Explain: Philosophers disagree on what psychological projection god is. Lots of philosophers say god is a psychological projection, however they all say different things to each other
Illustrate: Nietzsche said god and religion are an expression of the desire of oppressed people for revenge. But Freud said that god came about through guilt for our 'Oedipus complex' which means we have guilt for wanting to kill our fathers when we were younger, because we thought they would castrate us as rivals. And Marx also thought god was a different psychological projection he said that god was 'the opiate of the masses' and that god was a psychological projection to give hope to the oppressed.
Link: This is a weakness with the idea that God is a psychological projection, because people cannot agree on what psychological projection God is so this gives doubt to the argument that God is simply a psychological projection.
Name: Offensive
Explain: The view that god is a psychological projection is very offensive.
Illustrate: For example Marx said that that religion and god was only a tool to keep the exploited and the exploiters in their respective roles, and this is very offensive if you are a religious person. Nietzsche was also intentionally very offensive and provocative as he said that religion is a 'slave' morality and that it is born out of a thirst for revenge people in poverty have against their oppressors. Freud’s claim about god being a psychological projection is also very offensive as what he calls 'the Oedipus complex' implies that we want to have sex with our mothers and castrate our fathers. This is very offensive to most people.
Link: This is a weakness because it gives the claim less credibility as it sets out to be offensive and controversial.
Monday, 10 May 2010
ways in which God's attributes are mutually incoherent
N – God is said to be omnipotence but he is in fact limited by logic
E – God is omnipotence meaning he is all powerful, much more powerful that any of us humans. Showing that god is not like us in anyway, he is beyond us and he will always be something different to us. That said god cannot do the impossible, he cannot perform something logically incoherent. God therefore can’t go above reason.
I – He cannot make 2 + 2 = 5 because he is bound by the laws of logic. And even though he is all powerful he could never possibly be able to make a stone he could not lift.
L – This attribute is therefore not coherent as god could never be beyond the laws of logic or reason no matter how powerful he is.
N – A huge contradiction of gods attributes is the problem of evil when god is meant to be benevolent and hold supreme goodness.
E – God is very lovable to his creation and is said to be benevolent, forgiving and caring. If god controls what happens and is supremely good and loving towards us then why does he show us through evil and hate. A god that loved his creation could surely not let there be so much evil.
I – there are many forms of evil on this earth: war, natural disasters, crime and so on. A benevolent being shouldn’t and wouldn’t let this all happen surely.
L – Therefore benevolence is not mutually coherent with all the disasters and bad things that happen in this world.
or
Name: God cannot be eternal and omnipotent
Explain: To be eternal god needs to have no beginning and no end, but to be omnipotent god needs to be able to act in time
Illustrate: If god acts in time then he is not eternal as he will be subject to time and must have a beginning and end, but if god does not act in time then he cannot be as powerful as something that does act in time and god must have acted in time to create our universe, which means he has a beginning and an end so he cannot be eternal if he is omnipotent.
Link: These attributes are mutually incoherent because to be omnipotent god must act in time meaning he cannot be eternal
Name: God cannot be transcendent and immanent
Explain: Transcendent and immanent seem to be opposites
Illustrate: To be transcendent god must be metaphysical and outside of the physical world. But to be immanent god must be actively involved in the physical world, so he cannot be both as if he is metaphysical he cannot be in the physical world and if he is imminent he cannot be metaphysical as he would not be involved in the physical world
Link: This shows that the attributes of god are mutually incoherent as god cannot be both transcendent and immanent.
E – God is omnipotence meaning he is all powerful, much more powerful that any of us humans. Showing that god is not like us in anyway, he is beyond us and he will always be something different to us. That said god cannot do the impossible, he cannot perform something logically incoherent. God therefore can’t go above reason.
I – He cannot make 2 + 2 = 5 because he is bound by the laws of logic. And even though he is all powerful he could never possibly be able to make a stone he could not lift.
L – This attribute is therefore not coherent as god could never be beyond the laws of logic or reason no matter how powerful he is.
N – A huge contradiction of gods attributes is the problem of evil when god is meant to be benevolent and hold supreme goodness.
E – God is very lovable to his creation and is said to be benevolent, forgiving and caring. If god controls what happens and is supremely good and loving towards us then why does he show us through evil and hate. A god that loved his creation could surely not let there be so much evil.
I – there are many forms of evil on this earth: war, natural disasters, crime and so on. A benevolent being shouldn’t and wouldn’t let this all happen surely.
L – Therefore benevolence is not mutually coherent with all the disasters and bad things that happen in this world.
or
Name: God cannot be eternal and omnipotent
Explain: To be eternal god needs to have no beginning and no end, but to be omnipotent god needs to be able to act in time
Illustrate: If god acts in time then he is not eternal as he will be subject to time and must have a beginning and end, but if god does not act in time then he cannot be as powerful as something that does act in time and god must have acted in time to create our universe, which means he has a beginning and an end so he cannot be eternal if he is omnipotent.
Link: These attributes are mutually incoherent because to be omnipotent god must act in time meaning he cannot be eternal
Name: God cannot be transcendent and immanent
Explain: Transcendent and immanent seem to be opposites
Illustrate: To be transcendent god must be metaphysical and outside of the physical world. But to be immanent god must be actively involved in the physical world, so he cannot be both as if he is metaphysical he cannot be in the physical world and if he is imminent he cannot be metaphysical as he would not be involved in the physical world
Link: This shows that the attributes of god are mutually incoherent as god cannot be both transcendent and immanent.
weaknesses of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths
Intro: there are many different levels of truths, varying in profundity.
Most art, but not all, contains at least one of them.
Weakness 1: propaganda
Art can be used to persuade us to adopt particular viewpoints
Eg Michelangelo’s David was used by the Medicis to make them appear strong and powerful.
Weakness 2: Oscar Wilde
He believed that art should not be about truth, but about artifice.
Art is more important than truth.
Artists shouldn’t see or depict the world as it really is.
or
The first weakness is art can be used to persuade us to adapt a particular view point which would vary from person to person, therefore making the piece of art’s value differ. An illustration is Michelangelo’s David as when Michelangelo chose to create the sculpture he decided to represent David contemplating the battle of Goliath yet to come. However the sculpture came to symbolise the defence from more powerful rival states and the hegemony of the Medici in the Florentine Republic. This portrays that although the renaissance sculpture was originally meant to represent David, in truth it informs us on the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florence Republic. It is this propaganda created by the Medici family which proves that the value of art is not determined by informing us.
A second problem is through seeking truths in art it eradicates art qua art. It gives art a job and makes it instrumental by means of teaching us anything about truth, when art doesn’t have to. After looking at ‘The Ambassadors’ by Holbein people can describe it as valuable because of the levels of truth it contains, ranging in profundity. It contains representative truth through the painting portraying what a 16th century Cleric and Merchant looked like; their type of clothing and fabric for example. It contains universal truth which tells us something transcendent or metaphysical which increases in profundity through trying to set up a dichotomy or contrast between trade and religion. In addition, increasing in profundity, it includes epiphanic truth which accesses the divine truth of the painting. This truth is present in the anamorphic skull at the bottom. However through giving a piece of art a job of containing truths we demine art.
or
Name: Much art is not representational
Explain: Some art just doesnt represent anything
Illustrate: Lots of art doesnt appear to convey truth a good example of this is Matisses 'the snai' as it does not appear to have any truth in it as it is just an assortment of brightly coloured shapes. This painting has form which gives it value but it has no truth, this shows that truth is not where the value of art lies but it is in fact form.
Link:If some art does not have truth in it then how can the value of art lie in its ability to express truths, as this would make lots of art valueless. So the value of art must lie somewhere else for example in form or emotions
Name: Propaganda
Explain: The truth in art can often be propaganda trying to convince you of something
Illustrate: A good example of this is Michelangelo's David, he was commisioned to build it by the Medici Family, who were the ruling family of florence at the time. When it was completed it was placed on top of the town hall and the truth it came to represent was that the Medici family were very powerful and people should not mess with them.
Link: This truth does not show art has value because it expresses truth, as it is simply trying to convince people to obey the ruling family and to fear them. This also shows art does not have value because it expresses truth, as the truth in art can cause it to have a purpose and the value of art lies in its ability to be art for arts sake.
or
A weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truth is the fact that art can very easily be manipulated to produce the desired effect. This is demonstrated by propaganda, an example of which is Michelangelo’s ‘David’. This piece of art was intended to show Florentine prowess and wealth and to manipulate people’s emotions. This is backed up by Plato’s opinion that art was all smoke and mirrors and by believing it you were “feeding in unhealthy pastures”. Plato’s opinion shows how art can be used to manipulate and deceive. This is a weakness in the truth argument.
Another weakness in the truth argument is that art can become embroiled in its meaning and uses. Many believe that art doesn’t have a purpose and its only function is to be art. This idea is demonstrated by the Latin saying “art qua art” which translates as “art for art’s sake”, this is shown by much modern art, a lot of which is not intended to represent much. Oscar Wilde says that “no artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did he would cease to be an artist” This statement shows how Wilde thought that artists work shouldn’t be interpreted as presenting truth. This is a problem with art and truth.
or
The first weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths is that a lot of art is not representative of anything. If we look at modern art, it appears very abstract and so doesn’t directly show us the truth about anything. For example, “The snail” by Matisse doesn’t look like a real snail and so we can argue that it doesn’t tell us anything about the real world and so it could also be argued that the artwork is not valuable. This is a weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths.
The second weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths is that we are giving art a job. Art is supposed to be art and nothing else. It does not need to tell us anything and be informational, it just needs to be art and we should appreciate it for being art and nothing more. By giving art a job, we are undermining its real value. If we were to go to an art gallery, we shouldn’t go to learn something from art; we should go to appreciate the art as it is. If we wanted to learn something, then we would go to a library. This is a weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths.
or
N – A problem with art expressing truth is that it is not necessary; art doesn’t need to show truths it could just be appreciated for its beauty.
E – Art can just be ‘art for art’s sake’, art doesn’t need a job. It doesn’t have a specific role and if it happens to then that wasn’t intentional but you shouldn’t recognise it for this. Oscar Wilde, a scholar of beauty said that art was artifice meaning that it’s not about the real world; it’s artificial and better for it.
I – Art doesn’t have to represent anything. For example where is the truth in Matisse’s – The Snail. It doesn’t physically resemble a snail but it’s still a work of art and beauty.
L – Therefore art doesn’t need to express truth because it shouldn’t be given a role. It doesn’t serve a purpose, especially not telling truths.
N – Having truth in art is bad because it could corrupt the young if we don’t censor art there will be a feeling of unhealthy pasture.
E – Art could portray and represent evil things such as ugliness, meanness, bad character and ill discipline, Plato argued. So the truth in art should be censored because if it wasn’t then people will gain grave psychological damage. Art needs to only be about natural, healthy beauty.
I – For example a painting of a rose or a forest would be acceptable as it is not corrupt art but natural, real art.
L – Truth in art is bad because it could show representation of evil therefore corrupting the young, innocent eyes that look upon it. If they did they would be wrongly influenced and it would affect their education.
strengths of idea that art is valuable because it expresses emotion
N – Art has strength in being valuable because it expresses the sublime through emotion
E – Art is valuable to us in making us feel and express emotion. It can be seen as an escapism, the sublime makes us feel terror but we are not close enough to the danger to feel unsecure. Burke explains this as our need to experience sublime terror but to not feel too threatened so we can feel delight from the source of danger.
I – this type of sublime is displayed in Turners ‘Eruption of Vesuvius’. Experiencing this painting makes us feel very helpless, especially in the mass of smoke and fire; in the very bottom is a tiny figure. To which we can relate to but we don’t feel too threatened because it is not us and we are just visualising someone else’s terror.
L – Art is important to make us feel emotion because it unlocks are desire of experiencing terror but not being in danger.
N – Emotion in art is also cathartic; this is valuable because it refreshes one’s self.
E – We use art to help us release pent up emotion that we didn’t necessarily know we have. Freud revisited this idea of Greek Tragedy which helped the Greeks release their emotion because they saw someone else go through bad things. Freud said that we have ‘a pent up mass of negative emotion that we somehow need to release through art.
I – For instance Munch – The Scream helps us release pent up emotion because we can see and sympathise the pain and emotion she feels.
L - Art is therefore valuable because it helps us release blocked up emotions that we don’t always know we have.
E – Art is valuable to us in making us feel and express emotion. It can be seen as an escapism, the sublime makes us feel terror but we are not close enough to the danger to feel unsecure. Burke explains this as our need to experience sublime terror but to not feel too threatened so we can feel delight from the source of danger.
I – this type of sublime is displayed in Turners ‘Eruption of Vesuvius’. Experiencing this painting makes us feel very helpless, especially in the mass of smoke and fire; in the very bottom is a tiny figure. To which we can relate to but we don’t feel too threatened because it is not us and we are just visualising someone else’s terror.
L – Art is important to make us feel emotion because it unlocks are desire of experiencing terror but not being in danger.
N – Emotion in art is also cathartic; this is valuable because it refreshes one’s self.
E – We use art to help us release pent up emotion that we didn’t necessarily know we have. Freud revisited this idea of Greek Tragedy which helped the Greeks release their emotion because they saw someone else go through bad things. Freud said that we have ‘a pent up mass of negative emotion that we somehow need to release through art.
I – For instance Munch – The Scream helps us release pent up emotion because we can see and sympathise the pain and emotion she feels.
L - Art is therefore valuable because it helps us release blocked up emotions that we don’t always know we have.
Two problems with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art
Problem 1: the intentional fallacy
It is a mistake to try and figure out what the artist ‘meant’ by a piece of art. However, this is what people tend to do.
The artist also becomes more interesting than the artwork, for example Van Gogh, whose work is made even more popular because people know the story of him cutting off his ear.
Problem 2: Kant.
Believes it is vulgar to have a strong emotional response to art.
We should have a ‘Kantian disinterestedness’- a quiet, calm reflective response to art. Subtle ‘aesthetic pleasure.’
Not heights of emotion, as Burke said.
or
The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is the intentional fallacy. Some post modern thinkers argue that art has a life separate from the artist; it transcends the artist and his context. It has a value of its own, untethered from the author and his intentions. To become overly preoccupied with the emotions of the author it is to commit the intentional fallacy. Indeed Roland Barthes so diminished the importance of the author that he announced the death of the author. For example it doesn’t matter what Shakespeare thought of ‘Hamlet’ as the play has transcended Shakespeare to become entitled in its own right.
The second problem with this idea is that a piece of art is an inanimate object meaning it is unclear if you make psychological ascriptions to art because it’s uncertain whether it is the artist’s feelings or your own feelings that we become knowledgeable about. When we say a painting is sad it’s just a linguistic convention really we mean it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it was sad, it’s logically incoherent.
or
Name: The intentional fallacy
Explain: The intentional fallacy is when we look at a peice of art but instead of having a response to the piece of art as a separate body from its creator, we look at it in how we think the creator wanted us to.
Illustrate: This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art because whose emotions are we ascribing to it? the artists, ours or a bit of both? For example with Rothko's Seagram murals we often lapse into the intentional fallacy, as he killed himself the day they arrived in Britain. So people often think that the dark colours of the murals, give us an insight into his tortured mind. When in fact we would not give the murals this psychological ascription if we did not know the manner of his death.
Link: This is a problem with giving psychological ascriptions to art, because the ascriptions we give vary depending on what we think the artist wanted to show.
Name: Art cannot have emotions
Explain: Art cannot have emotions as it does not have a mind
Illustrate: We often give art psychological ascriptions, however art cannot have emotions so it is strange that we give it psychological ascriptions. If the art cannot have emotions then whose emotions is it that we ascribe to the art? The artists?, the audiences? or a mixture of both? For example with Gericault’s raft of the medusa, the audience know that he was aiming to cause controversy so will ascribe some of this to the art. However they will also know that it was a terrible event so will ascribe some of this to it, and they will ascribe some of their own thoughts to the art as well. This shows that the psychological ascriptions are a conglomeration of emotions.
Link: This is a problem because the ascriptions we give to art, are not our own but are a conglomeration of different emotions.
or
A problem with making psychological ascriptions to art is that it is confusing. We do not attribute the feelings that art makes us feel to the actual painting but rather to the artist. This asks the question of whether it’s the artist’s reel feeling or ours. However we can’t talk about the artist’s feelings.
Another problem with making psychological ascriptions is that we tend to make the artist become the art. This is demonstrated by Rothko’s ‘Seagram Murals’. Rothko’s associations with the paintings and his death add a lot to how we view them. This makes our opinion corrupted since we add new layers of meaning and emotion to the art, which was probably never meant to be added. This is one of the reasons why there is a problem with psychological ascriptions.
or
N – A problem with giving art psychological ascriptions is that we fall into the intentional fallacy, this is where the art becomes more about the artist that the art.
E – We tend not just to look at a piece of art and feel the natural response it provokes within. Sometimes our view of just the art is blocked by the knowledge we may have of the artist. Facts we know of them, their feelings, their possible intentions but this is a problem because we are not just seeing the art as it is or what effect it could have on its own.
I – An artist whose work is very much so associated with him is Rothko. It’s hard not to look at his work without associating it with the circumstances of his death.
L – This means that the art becomes the artist and we lose the effect of the art itself.
or
The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we try to judge what an artist ‘really’ meant by an art work i.e. to judge their intentions. We can never know what the artist actually wanted the art to mean and so we end up having false ideas about the art that were never intentional in the first place. If we become overly pre-occupied with the meaning of the art and how this is representative of the artists thoughts or feelings then we begin to become ignorant of the actual art in itself. This is called the intentional fallacy and is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.
The second problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we say unclear things about art. When we look at a painting, we may say that the painting is sad but this is a linguistic convention as an inanimate object such as a canvas cannot physically be sad. What we really mean is that it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it felt sad. By claiming that the art is sad, then we are making a statement that is logically incoherent as it is not obvious what we really mean by this statement. This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.
It is a mistake to try and figure out what the artist ‘meant’ by a piece of art. However, this is what people tend to do.
The artist also becomes more interesting than the artwork, for example Van Gogh, whose work is made even more popular because people know the story of him cutting off his ear.
Problem 2: Kant.
Believes it is vulgar to have a strong emotional response to art.
We should have a ‘Kantian disinterestedness’- a quiet, calm reflective response to art. Subtle ‘aesthetic pleasure.’
Not heights of emotion, as Burke said.
or
The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is the intentional fallacy. Some post modern thinkers argue that art has a life separate from the artist; it transcends the artist and his context. It has a value of its own, untethered from the author and his intentions. To become overly preoccupied with the emotions of the author it is to commit the intentional fallacy. Indeed Roland Barthes so diminished the importance of the author that he announced the death of the author. For example it doesn’t matter what Shakespeare thought of ‘Hamlet’ as the play has transcended Shakespeare to become entitled in its own right.
The second problem with this idea is that a piece of art is an inanimate object meaning it is unclear if you make psychological ascriptions to art because it’s uncertain whether it is the artist’s feelings or your own feelings that we become knowledgeable about. When we say a painting is sad it’s just a linguistic convention really we mean it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it was sad, it’s logically incoherent.
or
Name: The intentional fallacy
Explain: The intentional fallacy is when we look at a peice of art but instead of having a response to the piece of art as a separate body from its creator, we look at it in how we think the creator wanted us to.
Illustrate: This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art because whose emotions are we ascribing to it? the artists, ours or a bit of both? For example with Rothko's Seagram murals we often lapse into the intentional fallacy, as he killed himself the day they arrived in Britain. So people often think that the dark colours of the murals, give us an insight into his tortured mind. When in fact we would not give the murals this psychological ascription if we did not know the manner of his death.
Link: This is a problem with giving psychological ascriptions to art, because the ascriptions we give vary depending on what we think the artist wanted to show.
Name: Art cannot have emotions
Explain: Art cannot have emotions as it does not have a mind
Illustrate: We often give art psychological ascriptions, however art cannot have emotions so it is strange that we give it psychological ascriptions. If the art cannot have emotions then whose emotions is it that we ascribe to the art? The artists?, the audiences? or a mixture of both? For example with Gericault’s raft of the medusa, the audience know that he was aiming to cause controversy so will ascribe some of this to the art. However they will also know that it was a terrible event so will ascribe some of this to it, and they will ascribe some of their own thoughts to the art as well. This shows that the psychological ascriptions are a conglomeration of emotions.
Link: This is a problem because the ascriptions we give to art, are not our own but are a conglomeration of different emotions.
or
A problem with making psychological ascriptions to art is that it is confusing. We do not attribute the feelings that art makes us feel to the actual painting but rather to the artist. This asks the question of whether it’s the artist’s reel feeling or ours. However we can’t talk about the artist’s feelings.
Another problem with making psychological ascriptions is that we tend to make the artist become the art. This is demonstrated by Rothko’s ‘Seagram Murals’. Rothko’s associations with the paintings and his death add a lot to how we view them. This makes our opinion corrupted since we add new layers of meaning and emotion to the art, which was probably never meant to be added. This is one of the reasons why there is a problem with psychological ascriptions.
or
N – A problem with giving art psychological ascriptions is that we fall into the intentional fallacy, this is where the art becomes more about the artist that the art.
E – We tend not just to look at a piece of art and feel the natural response it provokes within. Sometimes our view of just the art is blocked by the knowledge we may have of the artist. Facts we know of them, their feelings, their possible intentions but this is a problem because we are not just seeing the art as it is or what effect it could have on its own.
I – An artist whose work is very much so associated with him is Rothko. It’s hard not to look at his work without associating it with the circumstances of his death.
L – This means that the art becomes the artist and we lose the effect of the art itself.
or
The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we try to judge what an artist ‘really’ meant by an art work i.e. to judge their intentions. We can never know what the artist actually wanted the art to mean and so we end up having false ideas about the art that were never intentional in the first place. If we become overly pre-occupied with the meaning of the art and how this is representative of the artists thoughts or feelings then we begin to become ignorant of the actual art in itself. This is called the intentional fallacy and is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.
The second problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we say unclear things about art. When we look at a painting, we may say that the painting is sad but this is a linguistic convention as an inanimate object such as a canvas cannot physically be sad. What we really mean is that it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it felt sad. By claiming that the art is sad, then we are making a statement that is logically incoherent as it is not obvious what we really mean by this statement. This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.
Two problems with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
A problem with the idea of categories is that they may vary from person to person. Whorf says that categories are determined by culture rather than Kant’s idea that they can’t be changed since they are so integral to our experience. An example of Wharf’s argument is language, the Eskimo’s have twenty different words for snow. Another problem that fits in with this argument is that put forward by Quine. He says that if categories are culturally determined then some must be better than others. Categories can be interpreted differently if they do vary between people, this undermines the way we use them to understand the world.
Another problem with categories is their origin. There is quite a lot of disagreement over where they do actually originate. Whorf thinks that categories origin varies according to culture. He used the Hopi Indians as an example. He said that they think about the world in a different way because they talk in a different way. This contrasts with the Orwellian idea that if a police state can control language they can control and restrict thought. This would mean they could also control categories. This means that Categories can be created and would therefore not be universal, which is Kant’s theory. The origin of categories is not certain so how can we be certain that they control how we view the world.
or
The first problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that just because we understand our perception of the world using categories, this does not mean that by using categories, we will know the truth about the external world. Kant himself said that we can only know about the phenomenal and not the noumenal and so it is meaningless to talk about the world in relation to categories, because we might not be talking about the real world at all. This is the problem of solipsism and is a problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
The second problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that categories vary from culture to culture. An example of this is the Hopi Indians. These people come from a culture where they do not have ways of saying ‘past, present and future’ and so they must have a different understanding of time. It is fair to say then that these categories are not universal and only apply to some cultures. This is a weakness of the idea that we understand the world using categories because we cannot be certain that it applies to everyone in the world.
or
One implication of this notion is the lack of consistency in answering the question; where do these categories come from? Kant believed that categories are predicates of experience meaning they are consequently built into the act of having experience. Therefore the categories are a priori knowledge; innate ideas. On the other hand Whorf argued that categories are things we learn, resulting in them differing from culture to culture. Thirdly the novelist George Orwell initiated the idea that categories are structured by language and introduced that if you can’t say it, you can’t think it. This idea was illustrated in his novel ‘1984’ about the totalitarian regime of a Party called Big Brother which decreases the dictionary resulting in a decrease of what you can think.
Another implication is if we do have pre-determined conceptual schemes do they vary from person to person across different cultures or are they universal. Kant believed that categories are universal. He argued that categories are fundamental to all experiences; they have to be in place for an experience to occur. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you don’t know anything about an experience; you will still know it has a temporal and spatial aspect as they are predicates of experience, thus they are not somehow peculiar to human psychology. Whorf argued that our conceptual schemes vary from culture to culture. He believed that if we have different ways of thinking and talking about the world we have fundamentally different experiences of the world.
Another problem with categories is their origin. There is quite a lot of disagreement over where they do actually originate. Whorf thinks that categories origin varies according to culture. He used the Hopi Indians as an example. He said that they think about the world in a different way because they talk in a different way. This contrasts with the Orwellian idea that if a police state can control language they can control and restrict thought. This would mean they could also control categories. This means that Categories can be created and would therefore not be universal, which is Kant’s theory. The origin of categories is not certain so how can we be certain that they control how we view the world.
or
The first problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that just because we understand our perception of the world using categories, this does not mean that by using categories, we will know the truth about the external world. Kant himself said that we can only know about the phenomenal and not the noumenal and so it is meaningless to talk about the world in relation to categories, because we might not be talking about the real world at all. This is the problem of solipsism and is a problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories.
The second problem with the idea that we understand the world using categories is that categories vary from culture to culture. An example of this is the Hopi Indians. These people come from a culture where they do not have ways of saying ‘past, present and future’ and so they must have a different understanding of time. It is fair to say then that these categories are not universal and only apply to some cultures. This is a weakness of the idea that we understand the world using categories because we cannot be certain that it applies to everyone in the world.
or
One implication of this notion is the lack of consistency in answering the question; where do these categories come from? Kant believed that categories are predicates of experience meaning they are consequently built into the act of having experience. Therefore the categories are a priori knowledge; innate ideas. On the other hand Whorf argued that categories are things we learn, resulting in them differing from culture to culture. Thirdly the novelist George Orwell initiated the idea that categories are structured by language and introduced that if you can’t say it, you can’t think it. This idea was illustrated in his novel ‘1984’ about the totalitarian regime of a Party called Big Brother which decreases the dictionary resulting in a decrease of what you can think.
Another implication is if we do have pre-determined conceptual schemes do they vary from person to person across different cultures or are they universal. Kant believed that categories are universal. He argued that categories are fundamental to all experiences; they have to be in place for an experience to occur. Therefore it doesn’t matter if you don’t know anything about an experience; you will still know it has a temporal and spatial aspect as they are predicates of experience, thus they are not somehow peculiar to human psychology. Whorf argued that our conceptual schemes vary from culture to culture. He believed that if we have different ways of thinking and talking about the world we have fundamentally different experiences of the world.
strengths of the idea that knowledge is innate.
Intro: a belief that, as Leibniz said, there are ‘veins in the marble.’
We are born with some knowledge of some things, Plato argued maths, ethics and The Good. Descartes believed we have innate knowledge of God.
Strength : certainty
Descartes believed that we should not trust out sense experiences as they could be being placed in our minds by a demonic imp. With this theory, we don’t have to. We don’t have to doubt what we think. Eg according to him, we can be sure of God. We have an innate notion of God as a ‘supremely perfect being.’
or
Rationalists believe in innate knowledge which is knowledge we learn prior to experience, a priori. When we are born we have been ‘pre-packaged with software’. This software could be about the knowledge of Maths, Ethics, The Good, God and causality. Plato illustrated how human beings must have innate knowledge of maths through the illustration of Aristotle asking a slave with no education about geometry. The slave knew how to do the geometry therefore Plato argued that we must have innate knowledge of Maths. This reiterates the idea that as human beings we must have an awareness of Maths as well as other things before we are born, which is innate knowledge.
The first strength is the amount of certainty that is reached through innate knowledge regarding the way the world is. We can only be certain of the evidence in our own mental states and not that of experience, as we can be certain about our ideas but uncertain about the physical world. In Kantian terms; we can only know the phenomenal (our own minds) and not the noumental (external world). . One thought experiment that makes us sceptical of the physical world is Descartes hypothetical Demonic Imp, this explains that the physical world could be ‘merely delusions of dreams’ and there could be a meddling Cartesian demonic imp ‘to ensnare our judgement’. Our idea of the physical world is very clouded and uses only our judgement.
Another example is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Those trapped in the cave believe that projections and shadows on the cave wall to be the physical world, as this is what they have experienced. However, our certainty of the physical world lies in our innate ideas of ethics, reason and memory.
Another strength is through us living in a post-Freudian age, we as a society have become more comfortable with ‘hidden’ or ‘unconscious’ knowledge than Locke was. Although we don’t understand why we do all the things we do, we have learnt to recognise that something’s are motivated by things we don’t understand or know. Therefore we may have innate knowledge of the world and just not know until we have discovered it through reason.
or
A strength of the innate idea is the argument is the example of maths. Plato explains the story of Socrates and the slave, in which the slave had no prior education but still managed to understand basic shapes. This follows on from the idea that we all have a basic understanding of shape and geometry from birth. This is related to the theory that maths exists even if nothing else does and it is the one constant in the universe. This idea of maths adds strength to the argument of innate knowledge since it is very difficult to argue that it was 'taught' to the slave - therefore this knowledge was innate?
We are born with some knowledge of some things, Plato argued maths, ethics and The Good. Descartes believed we have innate knowledge of God.
Strength : certainty
Descartes believed that we should not trust out sense experiences as they could be being placed in our minds by a demonic imp. With this theory, we don’t have to. We don’t have to doubt what we think. Eg according to him, we can be sure of God. We have an innate notion of God as a ‘supremely perfect being.’
or
Rationalists believe in innate knowledge which is knowledge we learn prior to experience, a priori. When we are born we have been ‘pre-packaged with software’. This software could be about the knowledge of Maths, Ethics, The Good, God and causality. Plato illustrated how human beings must have innate knowledge of maths through the illustration of Aristotle asking a slave with no education about geometry. The slave knew how to do the geometry therefore Plato argued that we must have innate knowledge of Maths. This reiterates the idea that as human beings we must have an awareness of Maths as well as other things before we are born, which is innate knowledge.
The first strength is the amount of certainty that is reached through innate knowledge regarding the way the world is. We can only be certain of the evidence in our own mental states and not that of experience, as we can be certain about our ideas but uncertain about the physical world. In Kantian terms; we can only know the phenomenal (our own minds) and not the noumental (external world). . One thought experiment that makes us sceptical of the physical world is Descartes hypothetical Demonic Imp, this explains that the physical world could be ‘merely delusions of dreams’ and there could be a meddling Cartesian demonic imp ‘to ensnare our judgement’. Our idea of the physical world is very clouded and uses only our judgement.
Another example is Plato’s allegory of the cave. Those trapped in the cave believe that projections and shadows on the cave wall to be the physical world, as this is what they have experienced. However, our certainty of the physical world lies in our innate ideas of ethics, reason and memory.
Another strength is through us living in a post-Freudian age, we as a society have become more comfortable with ‘hidden’ or ‘unconscious’ knowledge than Locke was. Although we don’t understand why we do all the things we do, we have learnt to recognise that something’s are motivated by things we don’t understand or know. Therefore we may have innate knowledge of the world and just not know until we have discovered it through reason.
or
A strength of the innate idea is the argument is the example of maths. Plato explains the story of Socrates and the slave, in which the slave had no prior education but still managed to understand basic shapes. This follows on from the idea that we all have a basic understanding of shape and geometry from birth. This is related to the theory that maths exists even if nothing else does and it is the one constant in the universe. This idea of maths adds strength to the argument of innate knowledge since it is very difficult to argue that it was 'taught' to the slave - therefore this knowledge was innate?
Strengths of the 'Tabula Rasa' Approach
Name: Credible-believable
Explain: Strong intuitive appeal, because it seems right that we are born without any knowledge and that we can gain it through our experience of the world. It also has strong intuitive appeal because it is hard to believe that we are born with knowledge and that we do not gain it through experience making the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with how we learn. Naive realism- sensations match reality, this makes the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with the world, it also makes it credible because it is hard to believe that our experiences do not match up with the 'real' world.
Name: Consistenct-coherent
Explain: The Tabula Rasa approach seems to be consistent with our experience of the world as we learn about things after we experience them, this is supported by hume as he said ideas must be tested or checked against experience and that if they correspond they are valid. He said ideas were faint and obscure and that sensory experiences are forceful and vivid this is also consistent as we cannot experience god so we have faint ideas about him, however we can experience cheese so have good knowledge about it.
or:
Intro: empiricist view- an epistemological stance in which knowledge is viewed as being derived ultimately from experience.
Eg. Locke and Hume
Tabula rasa is a blank slate. Our sense experience writes upon this slate.
Strength 1: credible or believable
People will accept it. They find it easy to understand and it has intuitive appeal.
People are comfortable with relying on their senses for information and they are confident that their senses are correct.
Strength 2: consistency, we can check the validity of these ideas.
Hume said that our ideas must be tested against our experiences, if they correspond, they are valid., ideas are only ‘faint and obscure’ whereas sense experiences are ‘vivid and forceful.’
This theory corresponds with our experiences, so it is credible.
or:
1) One of the Tabula Rasa strengths lie with the idea that it is more intuitive than rationalist approaches. Empiricist philosophers such as Locke argue that the approach is more readily acceptable since our sensations must match reality and it is more difficult for us to accept we have knowledge of something before we experience it, which is the basis for the rationalist idea of a priori knowledge. For example if we experience something it must exist because we experienced it. We can’t have had knowledge of it beforehand.
2) Another strength of the Tabula Rasa approach lies with the idea that we are born a blank slate, in Aristotle’s terms. An example of this is feral children. When children who have been abandoned very young and have been care of by animals, they have none of the knowledge that we expect from a child raised in human society. This means that the mind must be a blank slate since it is manipulated by the human’s surroundings.
or:
N – Tabula rasa holds strong intuitive appeal; it feels right to see it as a correct theory
E – Tabula rasa is credible because it’s based on sensations which we all experience. We don’t have to believe anything that we are told by someone else. But with this proposal of our minds being a tabula rasa – a ‘blank slate’ we can see it as credible because we can experience this ourselves.
I – For example we can see an red apple because there is a red apple, therefore we are gaining experience of this red apple and it is our first experience and it is ‘vivid and forceful’.
L – This is a strength of the tabula rasa approach because people are more likely to accept this theory because it feels right and sensations match reality.
Explain: Strong intuitive appeal, because it seems right that we are born without any knowledge and that we can gain it through our experience of the world. It also has strong intuitive appeal because it is hard to believe that we are born with knowledge and that we do not gain it through experience making the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with how we learn. Naive realism- sensations match reality, this makes the tabula rasa approach credible because it seems to match up with the world, it also makes it credible because it is hard to believe that our experiences do not match up with the 'real' world.
Name: Consistenct-coherent
Explain: The Tabula Rasa approach seems to be consistent with our experience of the world as we learn about things after we experience them, this is supported by hume as he said ideas must be tested or checked against experience and that if they correspond they are valid. He said ideas were faint and obscure and that sensory experiences are forceful and vivid this is also consistent as we cannot experience god so we have faint ideas about him, however we can experience cheese so have good knowledge about it.
or:
Intro: empiricist view- an epistemological stance in which knowledge is viewed as being derived ultimately from experience.
Eg. Locke and Hume
Tabula rasa is a blank slate. Our sense experience writes upon this slate.
Strength 1: credible or believable
People will accept it. They find it easy to understand and it has intuitive appeal.
People are comfortable with relying on their senses for information and they are confident that their senses are correct.
Strength 2: consistency, we can check the validity of these ideas.
Hume said that our ideas must be tested against our experiences, if they correspond, they are valid., ideas are only ‘faint and obscure’ whereas sense experiences are ‘vivid and forceful.’
This theory corresponds with our experiences, so it is credible.
or:
1) One of the Tabula Rasa strengths lie with the idea that it is more intuitive than rationalist approaches. Empiricist philosophers such as Locke argue that the approach is more readily acceptable since our sensations must match reality and it is more difficult for us to accept we have knowledge of something before we experience it, which is the basis for the rationalist idea of a priori knowledge. For example if we experience something it must exist because we experienced it. We can’t have had knowledge of it beforehand.
2) Another strength of the Tabula Rasa approach lies with the idea that we are born a blank slate, in Aristotle’s terms. An example of this is feral children. When children who have been abandoned very young and have been care of by animals, they have none of the knowledge that we expect from a child raised in human society. This means that the mind must be a blank slate since it is manipulated by the human’s surroundings.
or:
N – Tabula rasa holds strong intuitive appeal; it feels right to see it as a correct theory
E – Tabula rasa is credible because it’s based on sensations which we all experience. We don’t have to believe anything that we are told by someone else. But with this proposal of our minds being a tabula rasa – a ‘blank slate’ we can see it as credible because we can experience this ourselves.
I – For example we can see an red apple because there is a red apple, therefore we are gaining experience of this red apple and it is our first experience and it is ‘vivid and forceful’.
L – This is a strength of the tabula rasa approach because people are more likely to accept this theory because it feels right and sensations match reality.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Whose emotions are we engaging with when we appreciate the emotional content of a work of art?
The Rothko murals at Tate Modern are lovely in their oppression, erotic in their cruelty. These are paintings that seem to exist on the skin inside an eyelid. They are what you imagine might be the last lights, the final flickers of colour that register in a mind closing down. Or at the end of the world. "Apocalyptic wallpaper" was a phrase thrown at Rothko's kind of painting as an insult. It is simply a description; the apocalypse is readable in these paintings like a pattern in wallpaper - abstract, pleasurable horror.
The specification says:Art appears
inseparable from emotion, but whose emotions are
we engaging with when we appreciate the emotional
content of a work of art? (our own or the artists?)
Use the story of Rothko's life and work to attempt to answer this question.
Art as Truth or Emotion ?
Here's the event:
A raft was soon built; it was 20 metres in length and 7 metres in width, and was nicknamed "la Machine" by the crew. On 5 July, a gale developed and the Méduse showed signs of breaking up. Passengers and crew panicked and so the captain decided to immediately evacuate the frigate, with 146 men and one woman boarding the woefully unstable raft, towed by the boats of Méduse. The raft had few supplies and no method of steering or navigation. Much of its deck was under water. Seventeen men decided to stay on theMéduse, and the rest boarded the ship's longboats. The crew of the boats soon realised that towing the raft was impractical. They began to fear being overwhelmed by the desperate survivors on the raft. It was decided to cut the ropes, leaving the raft and its occupants to their fate.. The lifeboats, including the captain and Governor Schmaltz aboard, then sailed away to safety. Some landed immediately on the coast of Africa, most of the survivors making their way overland to Senegal though some died on the way.
On the raft, the situation deteriorated rapidly. Among the provisions were casks of wine instead of water. Fights broke out between the officers and passengers on one hand, and the sailors and soldiers on the other. On the first night adrift, 20 men were killed or committed suicide. Stormy weather threatened, and only the centre of the raft was secure. Dozens died either in fighting to get to the centre, or because they were washed overboard by the waves. Rations dwindled rapidly; by the fourth day there were only 67 left alive on the raft, and some resorted to cannibalism. On the eighth day, the fittest began throwing the weak and wounded overboard until only fifteen men remained, all of whom survived until their rescue on 17 July by Argus, which had accidentally encountered them
(link)
Gericault's 'Raft of The Medusa'
Does the value of the painting lie in it's truthfulness or it's emotional power?
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Art is not about truth
“That art is not about TRUTH!!!”
It’s about PROPAGANDA!!!
prop⋅a⋅gan⋅da
–noun
| 1. | information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. |
| 2. | the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. |
| 3. | the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. |
The Medici family used Michelangelo’s David as a symbol of the victory of a cunning mind over brute strength. The statue stood outside the Town Hall in Florence as if to warn enemies and to show their authority over the Florentines.
Propaganda is when people try to convince you something is true. Michelangelo attempted to do this with his sculpture of David. The sculpture represents the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, a state threatened by other more powerful states and by the domination of the Medici. (A business orientated family with traditions derived from patrons of the arts.)
Art is not about truth it is about more than that, for example it can be about propaganda. This is where art is used by people in power to convince people about things. For example Michelangelo’s David is actually a work of artistic propaganda. It was a statue commissioned by the Medici family to stand outside the Palazzo Della Signoria. The strength and muscle of David symbolises the strength and the hegemony of the Medici family themselves and to show their power among the people of Florence.
· "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification — and indeed, was allowed to be morally subversive.
·
· Art qua art… art is art, everything else is everything else.
ART COULD BE BAD FOR YOU
Plato said it could be seen as the youth of Athens 'feeding unhealthy pastures' ... so...ermh.... here's some pictures:
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Key Terms
Deductive reasoning
‘Be careful of that wasp; it might sting’
This is based on the logic that wasps as a whole have stingers; therefore, each individual wasp will have, therefore we do not have to examine each and every wasp to reach a conclusion about what characteristics it may have, as through deductive reasoning we can make an assumption that is efficient.
In short, you argue from the GENERAL (all wasps have stings) to the PARTICULAR (this wasp will have a sting) – make sure your general statement is certain though! – is it here?
A deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow logically.
Illustrate-
1) all men are mortal
2) Soc rates is a man
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal
Induction
Applying previous experiences to a general rule.
Observation è Pattern è Hypothesis èRule.
When a group of people bear a similar trait, it would be inductive to suggest that the next person you meet from that group will have that trait.
For example; all swans I have seen are white, therefore the next swan I see will probably be white.
Explain: Starting with a set of premise (eg this crow is black) you form a conclusion (eg all crows are black).
An induction is falsifiable – you can check if it’s right or wrong (eg you can look at different crows to see if they’re all black or not).
Illustration: This bachelor is happy therefore all bachelors are happy
In short you work from the PARTICULAR (this bachelor) to the GENERAL (all bachelors)
Necessary Truth is a truth that HAS to be true. It cannot be false. It is true in itself
Logical and mathematical truths are generally regarded as typical examples of necessary truths. For rationalism, necessary truth is truth of reason and is based on the insight into real connections between facts. For empiricism, knowledge of the world must be based on perception.
In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds. If these are all the worlds that accord with the principles of logic, however different they may be otherwise, then the truth is a logically necessary truth. If they cover all the worlds whose metaphysics is possible, then the proposition is metaphysically necessary.
Example: "Squares have four sides."
Descartes would say that God existing is a necessary truth because of the Ontological Argument - (God is perfect, therefore he must exist because he is perfect and because he is perfect he must exist!!!)
Contingent Truth
EXPLAINATION:
A contingent truth is one that could be true, but it could also be false – it completely depends - however it cannot be both true AND false.
A contingent truth is an idea that suggests that some objects exist and are true but do not always have to be i.e. in a different world a pen could not exist, but in our world it does.
EXAMPLE:
I could exist but only because my parents existed but I do not HAVE to exist, as suggested by necessary truths.
We all enjoy a good contingent truth at times. Basically, to put it simply, it means that it is a statement thatcould have been false even though it happens to be true.
Since that’s a bit crazy, let’s make it simple.
‘Cats have claws.’
Maybe they do – maybe they don’t
It’s all to do with essential and accidental qualities. Being a mammal, for example, is part of a cat’s essence. However, the claws are not necessarily so.
If you’re still confused, then think of it this way; a contingent truth is one that could logically be true or false. For example, Hume treats God as a contingent truth.
‘It is logical to reason that God does exist, but at the same time, it is logical to reason that he doesn’t.’
Maybe he does – maybe he doesn’t – it’d depend upon something – some sort of evidence
A contingent truth is something that could logically be true or false. Contingent truths, otherwise known as falsehoods, happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. For example:
"Squares have four sides." is necessary.
BUT
"Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent.
So, for it to be contingent, it can be true and also happen to be false at the same time. Also, If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in some other worlds, then it is a contingent truth.
A posteriori knowledge
- knowledge that is derived from experience. This knowledge is based on sensations and empirical evidence. For example, ‘it is raining outside’ isa posterior knowledge, because it is based on sensory experiences, and couldn’t be known without first having had this experience. This kind of knowledge is based more on empiricist views, who believe that all knowledge is derived from sensation.
A Priori knowledge
is knowledge before experience. You just know it. Examples are those such as God, Maths and Ethics. Plato claims that we have a priori knowledge of maths, and example to support this is Socrates and the slave in the market place. The slave, who would have had no prior teaching showed an understanding of the shapes. Therefore, it is claimed he must have had a priori knowledge of geometry.
Before and completely independent of experience, rationalist held concept of knowledge, veins in marble, schema for using, and understanding any knowledge found a posterior, through or after experience, are known a priori, before any experience of them, a priori knowledge include:- ratios, ethics, God, and the good, these are concepts, or knowledge, that is known a priori, and before any form of experience.
Also, other types of a priori knowledge are that of
Reason: you work out the answer via general knowledge through maths or scientific concepts, for example the size and constancy of the sun, even though via experience, it appears both small, and to ‘wax and wane’ we know, through reason, that the sun is huge and of a constant size.
Intuition: This is the so called natural feelings, for example, the way something feels, if something is stated, your na5tural feeling about it, whether the statement feels good, or bad, is known as intuition, this again is known before experience, and thus, is a prori.
Innate: knowledge that we are born with, rationalists state that, although they agree we are born a blank slate, we are not born without any forms of understanding knowledge, these, were known as ‘veins in marble’ this was put forward by Leibniz, stating that we are a tabula rasa with underlying veins in that marble.
These concepts aren’t held by empiricists so much, as they believe we have nothing in our head when we are born, and simply soak up the world.
A synthetic proposition
is a proposition that is capable of being true or untrue based on facts about the world - in contrast to an analytic proposition which is true by definition.
For example, "Mary had a little lamb" is a synthetic proposition - since its truth depends on whether or not she in fact had a little lamb.
The truth or falsity of synthetic propositions is possible but not certain - their truth depends on what the universe is like. (Is there a ‘Mary’s Lamb’ in it or not?)
Analytic proposition
Analytic propositions are those which are true simply by virtue of their meaning. They are true by definition, they cannot be falsified, they are undeniably true.
.Examples:
Analytic Proposition: All bachelors are male, all triangles have three sides – examples Kant used.
An Analytic Truth is one which contains its predicate concept in its subject, for example Triangle = 3 sides – no need to state once you know that particular information.
And as such with the other example – The concept bachelor contains the concept “unmarried”; and it is also part of the definition, likewise the same for the triangle.
They are tautologies: a statement which is useless repetition, from which we learn nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
