Edith Landmann-Kalischer on Aesthetic Demarcation and Normativity

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-334
Author(s):  
Samantha Matherne
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Literature ◽  
Aesthetic Judgment ◽  
Normative Question ◽  
Moral Domains ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
The Normative Question

Abstract Two perennial questions in aesthetics, among others, are the demarcation question, viz., what, if anything, distinguishes the aesthetic domain from the cognitive or moral domains, and the normative question, viz., what kind of normativity, if any, does the aesthetic domain involve. Although recent attempts to answer these questions can be found in contemporary literature, in this paper I examine the answers defended by the early phenomenologist Edith Landmann-Kalischer. I show that Landmann-Kalischer answers the demarcation question by blending together a cognitivist account of aesthetic judgment with an objectivist account of beauty, and that she builds an account of aesthetic normativity on this cognitivist and objectivist basis. I contend that her subtle and unified account of aesthetic demarcation and normativity has advantages over other competing hedonist and Kantian views and, as such, merits further consideration in contemporary debates.

Introduction: Governing Regulatory Interaction: the Normative Question

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 431-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Mayer-Schonberger ◽  
Alexander Somek
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Interaction ◽  
Normative Question ◽  
The Normative Question

scholarly journals Challenges of Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Human Values

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-72
Author(s):  
Margit Sutrop ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Human Values ◽  
Moral Problem ◽  
Technical Challenge ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Normative Question ◽  
Alignment Problem ◽  
The Normative Question

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly autonomous and will soon be able to make decisions on their own about what to do, AI researchers have started to talk about the need to align AI with human values. The AI ‘value alignment problem’ faces two kinds of challenges—a technical and a normative one—which are interrelated. The technical challenge deals with the question of how to encode human values in artificial intelligence. The normative challenge is associated with two questions: “Which values or whose values should artificial intelligence align with?” My concern is that AI developers underestimate the difficulty of answering the normative question. They hope that we can easily identify the purposes we really desire and that they can focus on the design of those objectives. But how are we to decide which objectives or values to induce in AI, given that there is a plurality of values and moral principles and that our everyday life is full of moral disagreements? In my paper I will show that although it is not realistic to reach an agreement on what we, humans, really want as people value different things and seek different ends, it may be possible to agree on what we do not want to happen, considering the possibility that intelligence, equal to our own, or even exceeding it, can be created. I will argue for pluralism (and not for relativism!) which is compatible with objectivism. In spite of the fact that there is no uniquely best solution to every moral problem, it is still possible to identify which answers are wrong. And this is where we should begin the value alignment of AI.

Christine Korsgaard’s Self-Constitution

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence Cuneo ◽  
Randall Harp
Keyword(s):  
Recent Attempt ◽  
Normative Question ◽  
The Normative Question

Christine Korsgaard’s 1996 book, The Sources of Normativity, attracted a great deal of attention. And rightly so. It is a highly engaging attempt to answer what she calls the normative question, which is the question of what could justify morality’s demands. Korsgaard’s latest book, Self-Constitution, develops and defends the broadly Kantian account of action and agency that hovers in the background of Sources, drawing out its implications for the normative question. In this review, we present the main lines of argument in Self-Constitution, raising objections to both Korsgaard’s account of action and agency and her most recent attempt to address the normative question.

Hearing the Contradictions: Aesthetic Experience, Music and Digitization

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-302
Author(s):  
Nancy Weiss Hanrahan
Keyword(s):  
Aesthetic Experience ◽  
Cultural Practice ◽  
Aesthetic Judgment ◽  
Thick Description ◽  
Cultural Form ◽  
Social Forms ◽  
Primary Object ◽  
The World ◽  
Digital Environments ◽  
The Aesthetic

If, as Susan Buck-Morss (2003) suggests, aesthetic experience is an occasion for “making critical judgments about not only cultural forms but social forms of our being-in-the-world,” or if it is linked, in David Hesmondhalgh’s (2013) account, to the possibilities of collective flourishing, potential changes in the nature of that experience merit critical attention. This article reflects on the ways in which these social or ethical dimensions of the aesthetic experience of music are affected by digitization. It moves from a discussion of aesthetic experience as a form of encounter that refers to a common world, to consideration of recent work in music sociology that engages themes that emerge from that discussion: aesthetic judgment, and the question of difference and commonality. With illustrations from focus group interviews, I suggest that the quantization associated with digital environments is altering the cultural form of aesthetic judgment, just as personalization is changing the meaning of “difference” in this context. The essay is intended as a disclosive critique that takes as its primary object not the world observable through thick description or hermeneutic interpretation of actual cultural practice, but a world evoked through critical reflection on its actual and potential constellations of meaning.

Feminist Aesthetics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. W. Eaton
Keyword(s):  
Aesthetic Judgment ◽  
Male Gaze ◽  
Canon Formation ◽  
Artistic Production ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Female Nude ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Feminist Aesthetics

This chapter summarizes central issues and themes in feminist philosophical aesthetics in the analytic tradition, although some continental figures are discussed. After introducing the interdisciplinary, intersectional and trans* inclusive approach that feminist aesthetics is starting to take, this essay discusses situatedness, artistic canon formation, humanism vs. gynocentrism, rewriting the philosophical canon, overcoming artworld biases, and the role of the aesthetic in systemic oppression. Specific topics to be discussed include the male gaze, the female nude, the concept of artistic genius, women’s artistic production, the purported universality of correct aesthetic judgment, the sex/gender distinction as it pertains to aesthetics and the arts, and body aesthetics.

Contractual Constructions

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-75
Author(s):  
Albert Weale
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Practical Reason ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Ethical Question ◽  
Logical Status ◽  
Normative Question ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Normative Question

Social contract theory can be understood as a form of constructivism. Constructivism is the view that the content of morality can be defined by a procedure, the results of which define principles of actions. Constructivism can be understood as directed both to the normative question of what principles are justifiable and to the meta-ethical question as to the logical status of such principles. In respect of the latter, constructivism holds to a procedure-dependent conception of practical reason rather than a truth-directed view. In the case of social contract theory, the procedure is made up of three elements: an original position; the reasoning of the contracting parties; and the contents of the agreement that those contracting parties conclude with one another. Some contract theorists can be thought of as aspiring to a form of ethical reductionism, involving the defining of moral notions in non-moral terms by means of the constructed procedure, but this is not true of all. In this connection, there is a dispute as to whether rationality is to be defined in terms of self-interest. Constructivism is offered as an alternative to intuitionism, in which it is assumed that principles are in some sense self-evident.

scholarly journals The neural mechanism of aesthetic judgments of dynamic landscapes: an fMRI study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueru Zhao ◽  
Junjing Wang ◽  
Jinhui Li ◽  
Guang Luo ◽  
Ting Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Processing ◽  
Occipital Lobe ◽  
Neural Mechanism ◽  
Aesthetic Judgment ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Middle Temporal Gyrus ◽  
Dynamic Stimuli ◽  
Dynamic Landscapes ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Aesthetic Judgments

AbstractMost previous neuroaesthetics research has been limited to considering the aesthetic judgment of static stimuli, with few studies examining the aesthetic judgment of dynamic stimuli. The present study explored the neural mechanisms underlying aesthetic judgment of dynamic landscapes, and compared the neural mechanisms between the aesthetic judgments of dynamic landscapes and static ones. Participants were scanned while they performed aesthetic judgments on dynamic landscapes and matched static ones. The results revealed regions of occipital lobe, frontal lobe, supplementary motor area, cingulate cortex and insula were commonly activated both in the aesthetic judgments of dynamic and static landscapes. Furthermore, compared to static landscapes, stronger activations of middle temporal gyrus (MT/V5), and hippocampus were found in the aesthetic judgments of dynamic landscapes. This study provided neural evidence that visual processing related regions, emotion-related regions were more active when viewing dynamic landscapes than static ones, which also indicated that dynamic stimuli were more beautiful than static ones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document