Re: aesthetic evaluation (was: RE: (OT) Music

Andy Canivet sikyal:

> >  > a set of aesthetic principles, just as we may not agree on moral
> >  > principles, it's still better to attempt to formulate and justify
> >  > aesthetics and morals, instead of simply acquiescing to "anything
> >goes."
> >  > IMHO.
> >  >
> >  >
> >How does one justify moral or aesthetic principles other than with
> >respect to a set of moral or aesthetic principles?
>
> I think ultimately the only justification for moral or aesthetic principles
> would have to be on A) the basis of emotion (esp. compassion and empathy in
> the case of morality), and B) the argument that moral and aesthetic
> principles are good for social harmony and therefore survival, but then
> survival is only justifiably good for emotional / substantive reasons as
> well.  But if it all defaults to emotion then I guess you're right, the
> notion of justification seems pretty ridiculous in any objective sense.
> Erk...
Eh? The most popular justification for moral principles is, and long has
been, appeal to an outside, absolute standard.  Standards are usually set
down by [gG]od(s?), but need not be--the Platonic Forms are non-personal,
as is the Tao, but both can be used as moral principles. It is only a
short leap to propose that aesthetic principles may be similarly derived.

I am aggressively agnostic about the existence of such *aesthetic*
principles, though.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton