the 3 moments in the aesthetics of Nietzsche

let's start with Nietzsche idea of Will (der Wille): a blind force which constantly strives for an unattainable resolution, and so serves merely to perpetuate further meaningless striving.

contrast the will to the world (der Welt). the world is therefore the pain of irreparable lack (what existentialists called "absurd"). the multiple refraction of the world constitute the world of representation and experience.

Next, N contraposes the "Dionysian" and the "Apollonian" principles. Here we get an idea of his aesthetics. the Dionysian is the "primordial unity" of things, a state of "intoxication" in which the deepest and most "horrible truths" of the world are glimpsed.

(side note Kant had called something similar "sublime", i.e.,  he overwhelming, awe-inspiring and yet elevating experience of things which exceed rational apprehension).

opposed to the Dionysian we get the Apollonian, which stands for the illusory, "mere appearance" of things. Apollonian indicates a dream-like state in which all knowledge is knowledge of surfaces. Aesthetically speaking, the Apollonian is the beautiful as intelligible, as conforming to the capacities of the representing intellect.

N's claim is that both Dionysian and Apollonian principles cross-fertilize one another, so that the metaphysical horror of existence is simultaneously revealed and made bearable. The ravages of intoxication are transfigured by dreams, and the sublime is beautified by the veil of appearances. Tragedy (especially Greek tragedy) reconciles both existence and the world.

Nietzsche (part 2)

In Twilight of the Idols N writes: "if we abolished the real world: what world is left? the apparent world perhaps?. . . But no! with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world!".

now the appearance/reality distinction falls squarely within the ordinary, everyday world of actual experience.

so, in N2 the appearance/reality distinction is transposed into the real world of human experience. 

this he calls human too human struggling between lies and truth.

the lie that performs the task of making life bearable. "art is the lie that sanctifies and the will-to-deception then has a good conscience". art beautifies life by interposing a veil of lies between us and truths about the world that we cannot bear (note: Wilde said the same thing contemporaneously in his The Decay of Lying).

for N2 art-as-lie is structurally identical to the Apollonian... in a famous unpublished note of 1888, he writes: "we possess art lest we perish of the truth."

What does all art do? does it not praise? does it not glorify? does it not select? does it not highlight? By doing all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. . . Is this no more than an incidental? an accident?Something in which the instinct of the artist has no part whatever? Or isit not rather the prerequisite for the artist’s being an artist at all . . . Is this basic instinct directed towards art, or is it not rather directed towards the meaning of art, which is life?

N2 uses an arsenal of metaphors to make this point: life-affirming valuations and life-denying valuations, superabundance and hunger, ascending life and declining life, strength and weakness, health and sickness.

N2 groups moralities under two heads: "noble morality," is rooted in a triumphant Yes". it's self-affirmation, self-glorification of life." on the other hand we have "slave morality," which from the "outset says No."

now art not morality, is the most fundamental symptom of a psychological economy. why art?

*art comprises "all creation and imposition of forms." the artist is the one that finds new meaning in relation to the whole. art includes every transformative, interpretative activity. its moral domain is "narrower" than the aesthetic. so, morality is simply a special case of the aesthetic.

*morality is a constraint: every morality involves the regulation of behavior through the repression of (at least some) instincts (Freud later uses this as his überich or superego).

At the lower limit, N2 places the noble moralities of human prehistory, in these man/animals we find the smallest degree of repression consistent with self-consciousness.

Art, liberates all these (repressed) forces.

Nietzsche part 3

N3! explores the idea of self-poesis or self-stylization = you're your own work of art. 

to achieve self-poesis one has to be ruthless with oneself, both in recognizing one’s own bad faith (the different ways that we lie to ourselves) and fixing it by reinterpreting it.

N3's motto is truth is ugly but art comes to the rescue.

self-poesis avoids complacency. we need to interpret ourselves, but interpretation is BIASED. we lie to ourselves perpetuating stagnation. uninterpreted life is worse: we remain ignorant. so, the challenge, is to interpret suffering correctly. now N3 explains the difference between christian and pagan self-poesis.

the christian construes himself as an immortal soul while the pagan understands all suffering in relation to the spectator of it. the pagan sees life as a movie he has to play. this is N3's idea of AMOR FATI ("love your fate"). this is close to triff's REALITY IS PERFECT mantra.

so, the christian's version of life is a form of poverty of life. the pagan, by contrast has a nobler approach because it looks at life in the face. why? because suffering is LIFE AFFIRMING. a symptom of abundance.

triff's notes on rights

what is a right? a right is a normative rule about what is owed of people or allowed of people.

rights express a certain relationship between two parties, the rights holders and the rights observers. Rights have two faces, depending on whether they are viewed from the perspective of the person who has the right or from the POV of the person who ought to respect the right.

what's an entitlement: a permission to act from the standpoint of the rights holder (it imposes a duty on others to oblige).

natural rights: are "natural" in the sense of "not man-made", one owns them because one belongs in the HOMO SAPIENS club. therefore, they are universal. they apply to all people, and do not depend from the laws of any specific society. they are inherent.

absolute right: an absolute right is the strongest right, which cannot be overridden by any other types of considerations (e.g., utility or expedience) that do not involve rights. example, right to freedom. imagine the right of a city to impose levies on my property for the construction of a project that benefits a section of the town my property is not on. in this case my right to freedom overrules the rights of the town to demand my acquiescence.  

prima facie rights: it means that at first sight, the right appears applicable but upon closer scrutiny, we may decide that other considerations outweigh it. 

legal rights: these are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures the right to vote (a felon may not enjoy that right).

negative rights: these are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. another way of looking at it is that negative rights are natural. Lockean proviso of rights: right to freedom, private property and pursuit of happiness.

positive right: is an entitlement ("one is entitled to") a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. example: welfare rights. see that positive rights are rights one consents in others having. one is not "born with them".

once again: a difference between negative and positive rights is that a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. If you think of the Kantian categorical imperative, a negative right can be associated with perfect duties (one is obligated to perform them) while positive rights are connected to imperfect duties (one is not obligated to perform them).  

political rights: they protect individuals' freedoms from infringement by governments, social organizations, and other private individuals. they include peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety. they include: protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability. they also include negative rights such as freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement. 

from the previous definition of political rights, one infers the rights to equal opportunity.

right to equal opportunity: is a state of fairness in society (in education or employment or housing) where people are treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.

example: take a person applying for a job. 1- her chances should be based solely on her qualifications. she should not be discriminated against because of position, connections, religion, sex, ethnicity,  race, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

making a distinction based on anything other than her qualifications would amount to denying others of equal opportunity.

homework chapter 43, architecture

1. what is the representational theory of architecture, pros and cons.
2. what is the semantic theory, pros and cons.
3. what is content and the aesthetics of architecture?
4. what is the difference between aesthetic and austere functionalism?
5. what's Scruton's account regarding the difference between experiencing and judging architecture?

chapter 6 ethics of duty

Kant's Formalism: Formalism is the theory that AIR because of the action's form.

1. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: What makes an action right is that everyone can act on it (which yields universalizability), and you'd have everyone acting on it (which yields reversibility: Golden Rule).

2. Duties: obligations one has by virtue of one's embeddedness in society. Perfect duty: A duty that must always be performed no matter what. And imperfect duties.

click here for my notes on Kantian ethics + categorical imperative.

3. Kant's Second Formulation: TREAT PEOPLE AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS TO AN END. Problems with the second formulation? C/A The problem with Kantian theory is the problem of exceptions to the rule. Should I keep a promise even if it puts someone's life in danger? Then, some times we have to treat people as means to ends.

click here for my notes on Kant's second formulation.

phi 2801 topics for Exam #3 (painting, film, music)

 Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein

PAINTING

1. Mimetic theory: in mimetic theory art imitates an idea by means of representing. so the value of a painting derives from what it represents. we say that the painting has a valuable aesthetic property when it represents something as having that property. Example: the portrait of Stein (above) accurately represents her as stern and stout, or inaccurately represent her as timid and delicately built. 

2. Formalism theory: it originates in the early twentieth century by the art critics Clive Bell and Roger Fry as a way to accommodate abstract art. Both critics distinguish "plastic form" from its "illustrative content." Form comprises lines, shapes, and colors (and the relations between them) of its design. For most formalists, plastic form also comprises the three-dimensional shapes and planes represented in a painting (and relations among them).

3. Parallelism theory: Defended by art historian E. H. Gombrich (1969). Painting either exhibits a form design (e.g. its flat surface composed of brush strokes, marks and lines) OR its content (the three-dimensional scene it represents), but never both at one and the same time. This is analogous to the way we can see Wittgenstein duck/rabbit drawing, which he called "seeing-as."

Twofoldness theory: This kind of seeing is what Richard Wollheim calls "seeing-in". We sometimes see figures in clouds or water stains or ink blots, and when we do, our experience amalgamates features of the "design" with features of the presented object. Awareness of one does not annihilate awareness of the other; rather, the two aspects blend into one "twofold" experience.

FILM

Arguments against film as art: Roger Scruton and Theodor Adorno suggest that the fictional dimension of a film is perverted by the mechanical and/or commercial nature of film-making, this commercial function conflicting with the‘autonomous’ development necessary for art's idea of purposelessness.

Einseinstein's montage: The concept refers to the creation of new, higher levels of meaning and experience through the juxtaposition of any more basic elements. Eisenstein discriminated different types of montage and elaborated the notion in numerous directions. Here are some of the different montage ideas he explores in his book Film (1957).

Arnheim's Gestalt aesthetics: This is the definition of art as embodying "purposiveness without purpose": the notion that aesthetic objects (whether natural or man-made) are distinctive because of the manner in which they are cut loose from practical ends. This disengagement from practical purposes enables aesthetic objects to be used for purely perceptual or contemplative purposes: roughly speaking, the aesthetic object becomes an occasion for reflection rather than action.

Benjamin's idea of aura: According to Walter  Benjamin, the traditional artistic object possesses an "aura" which arises from the fact that the object is unique. Benjamin sees art as a descendant of religion; the aura of an artistic object is the secularized equivalent of the mystical & religious icons and artifacts. The advent of techniques of mechanical reproduction sweeps away any such aura, by undermining the uniqueness of the artistic object. The thousands of digital reproductions of the The Mona Lisa become degraded tokens of the original painting.

MUSIC 

Expressionist theory: People value music because of how it makes us feel, i.e., its ability to evoke emotion in us.

Representationalism: Music is essentially iconic. Music is an imitation or representation of, and thereby refers to extramusical human emotions, character, and ideas. Referentialism is NOT EXPRESSIONISM. Saying that a piece of music makes us sad (Expressionism) need not be taken to imply, or to be implied by, saying that the music is an imitation of sadness or that IT is about sadness (Representationalism).

Formalism in music: There are many non-referential aspects of music with aesthetic power, such as rhythm, counterpoint, motivic relationships, harmonic structure, and so on.

Kivy's expressionistic theory of music:  Kivy rejects simple arousalism. When he says: "It is quite compatible with my perceiving the most intense emotions in a work of art that I not myself be moved in the least". Rather, the listener’s response to expressive character is one of recognition: it is a cognitive rather than affective response. The recognition of expressiveness happens via recognition of music’s resemblance to the human behavioral expression of emotion. If a piece is sad it is because one perceived a structural similarity between sad music and the behavioral expression of sadness (for example, one imagine hopeless helpless moods. Kivy is attracted to Plato's idea of music as imitation.

Walton's representationalist version: According to Walton, as the listener imagines the experience of musical sounds to be an experiencing of particular emotion. Music stimulates the listener's imaginative experience, whether it's conflict and resolution, motion and rest. But the fictional worlds induced by music are far less determinate than those in painting and literature.

Goodman's semantic theory of reference: According to Goodman a sad piece of music metaphorically possesses the property of sadness and exemplifies that metaphorical property. Goodman is NOT saying that sadness is a property music has. INSTEAD that sad music bears a symbolic relation to the property of sadness.

HIGH & LOW ART 

High art: painting, sculpture, performance, photo, film, classical music, jazz, ballet, modern dance, theater.

Low art: crafts, video, folk dance, break dance, rock, rap, vaudeville, burlesque. 

Modern High Art: All the 20th century "ISMS": Cubism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Conteptual Art, Minimalism, Abstractionism, etc. 

A taste public: According to Herbert Gans, users generally make choices of values and taste as a result of their cultural content. There are five taste publics: high culture, upper-middle culture, lower-middle culture, low culture and folk low culture.

Tolerant hierarchicalism: Popular art is dominated by a need for familiar forms, an intolerance of ambiguity, a tendency toward easiness and indulgence in stimulated emotion. In spite of all this there is a time and place for popular art.

Intolerant hierarchicalism: Popular art (low) is essentially flawed. A rare view.

Pluralism: There are two classes of works, but he finds each group significantly valuable. Each group has different aesthetic needs.

Nöel Carroll's defense of HIGH:

1. Massification: In order to appeal to a mass audience, the mass work must gravitate “toward the lowest level of taste, sensitivity, and intelligence”. This is not compatible with distinctive expression (unique expression flowing from a personal vision), yet distinctive expression is what art should aim at.
2. Passivity: Genuine art should require active spectatorship. But mass or popular art, in order to generate broad appeal and accessibility, abets passive reception. It is easy and safe.
3. The formulaic: A common complaint is that popular or mass art is formulaic,whereas real art is original in its conception and in its goals.
4. Autonomy: Many theorists view the arts from the perspective of political. Adorno, for example, held that a central function of art is to provide a critical perspective on society; its goal should be liberation from the social,economic and political realities.

how to present the final exam

Phi 2604 Critical Thinking and Ethics
Doe, John
Final Exam

Times New Roman p. 12
double spaced answers.
just the answers, not the questions.

Final Exam chapter 27

1- Peter Singer is talking about Bengal, which he calls "the present situation," but that was in 1972. Can you think of a place in the world right now that fits that "emergency" profile? Which? If so, what (following Singer) would that prove?
2- What is Singer's thesis in chapter 27 regarding affluence and famine?
3- Singer writes: "... if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it." What does he mean? Do you agree or disagree, explain your answer.
4- Singer says the following: "... If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are away from him)." What is he driving at?
5- Singer makes an argument on p. 248 for giving more than $5 to the Bengal Relief Fund. What is it? Do you agree? Why?
6- What does "supererogatory" mean? On p. 251 Singer talks about "common distinction between duty and supererogation." What does he mean?
7- Are you acting immorally by buying a luxury car while others are starving? Justify your answer.
8- Are you acting immorally by paying college tuition for your children while other children have no opportunity for any schooling? Justify your answer.
9- Do you have a moral obligation to try to alleviate extreme poverty in your own country before attempting to do so in other countries? Explain.

final exam, thursday, april 28 at 8:25am

HW, chapter 29

1- What is Walzer's definition for terrorism? p. 266
2- Define the "indirect approach."
3- Is terrorism a "civilian strategy"?
4- The increasing use of terror represents a breakdown of what political code?
5- on p. 268 there are three cases. what is common to all three?
6- On p. 268, Walzer mentions three categories. Go over these.
7- Which people do terrorists try to kill? p. 269
8- Is there a difference between the "Russian Revolutionaries"? the "Stern Gang"? and the IRA? ISIS?
9-Compare these on q. 8 with the NFL's campaign in Viet-Nam
Explain Walzer's distinction of "targets" on p. 271.

homework #7, chapter 7

questions are based on this chapter 7 from the text. 

1. define the following:
a) right, b) entitlement, c) claims, d) duties, e) responsabilities,
2. what is a negative right? give examples.
3. what is a positive right? same as above.
4. As per classification of rights define: a) absolute rights, b) prima facie rights, c) scalar rights,

More interpretive questions,

5- do you agree with Gregory Vlastos (page 199), that all rights are prima facie rights? (think of scalar rights to inform your question)
6- do you agree that there are absolute rights?
7- since legal rights and moral rights are different is one more "inherent" than the other?
8- how do you justify someone having a "natural" right to freedom? (think of your own freedom) 
9- some people, ideologies and governments believe that rights are not inherent, but given. do you agree or disagree and if so, explain.
10- you think animals deserve rights? (if so, should you kill them?)
read this link about euthanasia
11- is involuntary euthanasia moral?
12- do you believe there's something called "dying with dignity"?
for question 12 read this (scroll to "who is at risk for suicide")

HW, Chapter 30

1- what's mcpherson´s definition of terrorism?
2- on p. 276 mcpherson makes a point about war deaths and combatants vs. non-combatants. why?
3- then he cits article 51 of the geneva conventions to address what he calls "proportionality principle" and offers two reasons. comment these.
4- what's mcpherson's conclusion regarding the "proportionality principle"?
5- is there a difference between nelson mandela's terrorist activist and the terrorism defended by ISIS? explain your answer.
6- what's mandela's justification of terrorism? do you agree?
7- read mcpherson's last paragraph on p. 279. do you agree? explain your answer.

Exam #2 (Chapter 37)

Bring this test, printed, headed (top, left hand-side) Times New Roman, p. 12,

Heading:

Phi 2604, Test #2
T,R 8:25am
Doe, John

____________________________________

1- What is the main argument of Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rigthts"?
2- Mary Anne Warren disagrees with Regan. Why?

person_p= a being with 1. reason, 2. sentience, 3. autonomy, 4. free will?

3- what is the "weak animal rights" position?
4- Mary Anne Warren takes Regan's argument into three stages: mention each one.
5- Take this of the best known animal rights defender utilitarian Peter Singer:

In "Animal Liberation," Singer argues that in assessing the consequences of our actions, it is necessary to take the interests of animals seriously and to weigh any adverse affect on those interests from human actions as part of the consequences of those actions. Humans have failed to do this, Singer argues, because of a species bias, or speciesism, that results in a systematic devaluation of animal interests. Singer claims that speciesism is no more morally defensible than racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination that arbitrarily exclude humans from the scope of moral concern.

Do you agree with Singer that our treatment of animals shows this kind of species bias? If so, provide one example.

6- What does "inherent value" mean?
7- How does a "perfectionist theory" is adumbrated into the "inherent value" argument according to Regan?
8- What is the "respect principle"?
9- From Regan's perspective, do the trees in a forest have inherent values? why?
10- Do you see a difference between "value" and "right"? Explain.
11- Do you agree with Mary Anne Warren argument in p. 348 of how much is enough?
12- What is Regan's answer to the objection of how far down the biological ladder should we go in granting rights?
13- Do you take the following quote by Mary Ann Warren as a defense of animal rights? If so, what kind?

The weak animal rights position seems an unstable compromise between the bold claim that animals have the same basic moral rights that we do and the common view that animals have no rights at all.

14- Then on p. 352, Mary Ann Warren declares this:

The most plausible alternative to the view that animals have moral rights is that although they do not have rights, we are, however obligated not to be cruel to them.  

 Is she definitely defending this position as a substitute to Regan's? If think not, what is she saying?

HW (Chapter 39)

1. According to Sober, environmentalists have a problem. What is it? 

2. "Widening the ethical circle" according to Sober means including less organisms whose costs and benefits we compare.

3. Is Sober making an argument that species have mental states?

4.  Does he believe that every species is crucial to a balanced eco-system?

5. Does Sober believes that each extinction matters only "a little?"

6. Do you think that Sober takes the environmentalists to be using the slippery slope argument?

7. According to Sober, do environmentalists and animal liberationists differ with respect to wild and domesticated animals?

8. Do environmentalists favor domesticated animals?

9.  Do you think that if a whale is listed as "in danger of extinction" it should count more than another which is not? If so why?

10. What is a slippery slope argument?

11. Do you find any relevant differences between aesthetic and environmental values?

homework, chapter 6 (ethics of duty, part 2)

Dear class: Let's go back to some points in Formalism, now that I have added W.D. Ross's revision of Kant. (Go to page 187. Kantian Heritage).

1. how is acting from duty exemplary?
2. why should morality be impartial?
3. why is respecting others important?
4. why did Kant miss the importance of human inclinations?
5. Kant excluded emotions from his formalism. Why? How could emotions be included wothout betraying our notions of duty?

from my W.D. Ross' post:
1. according to W D Ross, what's the difference between a prima facie duty and an actual duty?
use the example I provided. keeping a promise to A endangers the life of B.   
2. what's my prima facie duty?, what's my actual duty?
3. is "breaking my promise" my actual duty?
4. Ross really doesn't provide a duty hierarchy, yet, "self-improvement" is not at the top of his duties. why?
5. think of a situation where self-improvement becomes a higher ranked duty.

from my self-respect post:
1. explain why dignity is "absolute inner worth" according to Kant?
2. why is dignity intrinsic?
3. Discuss how Paul Dodhson connects time, sex, relations and drugs, with the idea of dignity.

Some ideas about self-respect

DIGNITY IS AN END

self-respect yields the idea of self-worth or human dignity. as autonomous moral agents, we are ends in themselves with the "absolute inner worth" that Kant calls "dignity" (Würde).

Dignity is not a worth that others can give to you, or one has to earn or waive or give up. If you are a person you have DIGNITY, regardless of personal qualities, social status, and accomplishments and failures.

Dignity is intrinsic worth: we all have dignity simply in virtue of having been born with the rational capacities that make us persons. Persons are all equal in dignity, and this gives each person both the moral status of an equal person among persons and an equal set of basic rights, at least some of which are inviolable and inalienable.

now, let's address self respect by applying Kant's second formulation to oneself:

treat yourself as an END never MERELY as a means to an end (taken from Paul Dodsohn A Personal Guide For the Honest)

imagine these: 1. Wasted time, 2. Bad sex, 3. Drugs, 4. Bad companies.  

let's tackle those:

1. Wasted time: time flies. because of its temporal importance, time is the reserve of one's life. I must save my time to become as productive as I possibly can. 

Wasting time is WASTING LIFE. Wasting life is being self-destructive.  

2. Bad sex: clearly, sex is more than sexual pleasure. sex is a vehicle for meaningful relationships -as with romantic love. but there's bad sex when sex turns against one's dignity and self-growth. 

Bad sex leaves us regretful, empty, and emotionally scarred. 

3. Drugs: A drug habit undermines one's dignity by making the person dependent on their worst possible traits. 

Since "under the influence" one is not fully oneself, drugs may make us do regrettable things.  

4. Bad companies: these are bad relations that impede one's flourishing. they waste one's time because very little comes out of it. one shouldn't be friends with people who are disrespectful to themselves or others. 

With bad friends I end up doing what I ought to stop myself from doing.

HW (chapter 25)

1- What's the difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia?
2- Rachels analyzes the cases of children which Down's syndrome are allowed to die in cases of intestinal obstruction. She then gives an example of Smith's inheritance (p. 229). She asks: Did either men behave better from a moral point of view?  Do you have a counter to Rachels's point on behalf of doctors?
3- Under what circumstances is active euthanasia morally preferable to passive euthanasia?

chapter 35, READING, HIGH VS. LOW

Gans strikes me as a cultural relativist disguised as a perspectivist. why?
he attributes these differences between high and low to "taste." and the taste is given -he would say- by intersubjective norms, but he doesn't press further that the a work is better because notes in the work that elicit notes which become a norm.

in the end we get an "elite" taste and a "commons" taste. the point is that given any subset of "low" you can find we always get a niche of experts, i.e, we get "elites" in each sub common category. but i'm ahead of myself.

in the middle of all this is the history of high/low, which goes back to 18th century. it's a modern thing. then there is cultural evolution: early 20th century, movies were "low" when compared to theater, now it reigns. rock music was attacked by establishment and many jazz players (rock was a competition to earlier swing music from jazz bands, note: charlie parker hated it because it lacked the harmonic complexity of jazz).

... popular art is dominated by a need for familiar forms, an intolerance of ambiguity, a tendency toward easiness and indulgence in stimulated emotion. In spite of all this he thinks there “is a time and place even for popular art. 

who doubts that mcdonald's whooper sandwhich is a masterpiece? 

Novitz defends a form of conventionalism which makes high a product of the elites. but that ignores that opera was popular when it came out (there was opera a opera buffa or comic). jazz was quite popular when it came up in new orleans in the 1920s. now it's a classical form, the chinese and venezuelans take classical music to new hights in their youth symphony orchestras.

Carroll (1998) seems to defend a sort of objectivist position. he argues that the key theoretical concept is not that of popular art but of "mass art" that is to say, art that is mass-produced and distributed in multiple quantities as a species of popular art, which he defines as the art of the commons. what makes this possible?

the commons? or the media? (many argue with the advent of social media that it's both)

1. massification. to appeal the mass work must gravitate "toward the lowest level of taste, sensitivity, and intelligence".
2. passivity. genuine art should require active spectatorship, yet mass art abets passive reception. it's easy and safe.
3. formulaic. a common complaint is that popular or mass art is formulaic,whereas real art is original in its conception and in its goals.

this has three points:

1. multiples
2. produced and distributed by a mass technology
3. intentionally designed to gravitate in its structural choices (for example, its narrative forms, symbolism, intended affect, and even its content) toward those choices that promise accessibility with minimum effort. . . for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences."

since Carroll bites the bullet, we should think through his points: 

point 1. lowest means saleable. that's definitely a concern of producers today. 2. passivity? how does one define that? techno is repetitive. but so is minimalism in contemporary music. how is mass music being distributed in the radio more "passive" than a more challenging music form? 3. formulaic. definitely! main stream reggeton is a good example.

homework #6, chapter 6

this homework is based on our textbook, chapter 6,

and my two lectures: on this lecture and this lecture.

1. Why is keeping a promise a duty? In your defense, bring to bear Kant's first formulation. 

2. Do you have duties to yourself? Explain why.   

3. What does it mean to say that an action is universal and reversible? 

4. What's Kant's idea of respect? Bring an example from your own life to apply this idea.

5. Explain the difference between treating a person "as a mean to," and "merely as a mean to and end"?

6. How do you apply the second principle to yourself? Explain.

Questions stressed in yellow require at least 30 words.

HW 9 (chapter 43)

This chapter explores the idea of consensual sex on campus

Be aware of each of the three stories of Joan (p. 410-411).

1- In light of freedoms of adult students and teachers to pursue their relationships, is there a possibility of a policy limiting sexual relationships on campus?
2- Do you agree with Wesley College's policy that sexual relationships constitute "an intolerable invasion of
privacy?" If yes or no, why?

We need the following definitions:
Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.
Conflict of interests: the circumstance of a public officeholder, corporate officer, etc., whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence.
Autonomy: The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.

3- Explain the paternalist position concerning sexual relationships (p. 413).
4- Do you agree that the paternalist view affects women unequally? If so, why? (keep in mind that right now there are more male professors than female professors in our universities and colleges).
5- What would a more permissive policy regarding sexual relationships on campus may look like? Elaborate.
6- Let's go over the different problems of consensual relationship on campus (p. 414)
7- What is the most likely conflict of interests at universities? Give examples. (p. 414)
8-  What is impaired consent? (hint: a "yes doesn't mean a "yes") Explain.
9-  Define "informed consent"?

HW 8 (chapter 35)

Let's start this second text with an analysis that is often postponed or not addressed at all. the issue of Animal Rights on Chapter 35. 

1- What are the animal goals that philosopher Tom Regan is committed to at the beginning of the essay?
2- In the second paragraph we get a look at a second possible position which is still sympathetic to animals, though Tom Regan would not support it. make a hypothetical list of that second less radical position?
3- What is Regan's "fundamental wrong"?
4- Regarding animals, what's an "indirect duty"? in the dog example, what is Regan trying to show? p. 328
5-  Contractarianism is the view of a social contract between parties that agree to a set of rules which maximize their interests. The result for ethics is that moral actions follow the rule, immoral actions disobey the rule. 
Explain why Regan doesn't think Contractarianism makes sense in the case of animal rights.
7- Is Contractarianism an indirect view of justice according to Regan?
8- Comment the "cruelty/kindness view." Why is it no better according to Regan?  p.330
9- Explain this sentence: "What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual whose interests they are." . 332
10- Define Speciesism? p. 331
11- Do you agree with Regan's example of Aunt Bea?
12- What does it mean being "the subject of a life?
13- Do you believe that animals have inherent value? If not, why not?
14- If you answer to 13 is "No," are you then a speciesist?
15- Do you agree with this?

Some believe animals have less inherent value than we have. What is the reason? Lack of reason, intellect? Only if we're willing to make the same judgment in the case of humans that are similarly deficient.