In Response to Jacob's Second Question

It is difficult to place value on the relevance of particular intellectual virtues over others in aesthetic theory. I believe that all of the intellectual virtues contribute equally to aesthetic theories, in that one is not more meaningful than another. I do however, find it true that some intellectual virtues are evidently more numerous than others, making it seem as though those intellectual virtues which are not as commonly seen or put into practice to be of a greater interest simply due to its infrequency. For example, judgment seems to be a relatively common intellectual virtue in aesthetic concepts so therefore, many may see it as of a lesser importance than a more uncommon virtue such as interpretive charity. Critical thinking is also an often used intellectual virtue, whereas intellectual courage might be more difficult to see in some arguments. All intellectual virtues tend to be present in one way or another in theories. In developing theories themselves virtues such as passion for truth, critical thinking, judgment and intellectual courage are employed and examining the theories requires intellectual honesty, humility, and charity. Overall, I personally see no intellectual virtue holding more importance over another in aesthetic theory, but rather I see that some are more common than others making some see a greater value in those that are less frequent or more difficult to perceive. What are some other intellectual virtues not listed in the toolkit that would be a good addition?

In Response to Jacob's First Question

As we have mentioned numerous times in class, epistemology, ontology, and axiology are clearly interrelated so that one cannot exist independently of the others. Knowing that all three are interrelated in many different ways, if I had to place aesthetics in one, and only one, of the three categories I would categorize it under axiology. Axiology seems to be the most appropriate place for aesthetics because the appreciation of aesthetics is a clear value of human society. While physical art objects are evidently part of the ontological portion of the triad, aesthetics consists of much more than just art objects. Humans can place so much value on art forms that they build museums, attend stage productions, and contribute millions of dollars to the music industry, all of which are considered art forms. There is a lot of value placed on the uniqueness of art and what it brings to the mind when viewing it (whether it is some sort of emotional reaction or allowing for the individual to question its meaning and worth). Without art in its many forms our society would be at a grave loss. Due to the extreme positive impact that aesthetics has on individual’s daily lives, it is well valued to the majority of people who are able to make this recognition and accept it as a truth. Appreciation of art is a value to many people, making it more of an association with axiology in comparison to the other two branches of logic. Other than aesthetic theory, what aspects of aesthetics could be considered more epistemological than axiological?

Art vs. Pure Aesthetics

While reading the internet encyclopedia of philosophy’s section on aesthetics, many concepts discussed in the article caught my interest. The first main concept which took my interest was the argument pertaining to what differentiates art from pure aesthetics. The author of the article clearly labels the difference between the two to rest solely on the presence of intention, but this definitional difference has room for probability. The article does not go into discussing what art’s intention is to be. Art, in its many forms, can be created with the intention of being aesthetically pleasing to others, to be aesthetically pleasing to oneself, or just for the pure enjoyment of creating it. Art is used as a tool in a variety of settings from keeping kids occupied and entertained in an after school program to “art therapy” in psychiatric wards to help patients struggling with mental illnesses to focus their attention on something constructive. These forms of art usually have intent other than to be aesthetically pleasing to a viewer, but are still considered art forms despite their difference in intent. If art is created without intention is it still considered art? I think that if one finds the piece of art to be aesthetically pleasing it should be considered art despite the fact that it was not intended to be so. Keeping the argument for the presence of intention in separating art from pure aesthetics in mind, is there something that could fall into both categories of art and pure aesthetics, or are the two mutually exclusive?