Re: aesthetic evaluation (was: RE: (OT) Music
|From:||JS Bangs <jaspax@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, June 13, 2002, 21:08|
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
> > > 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.
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*
Jesse S. Bangs firstname.lastname@example.org
"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."