Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Why Has Aesthetic Formalism Fallen On Hard Times?, David E.W. Fenner
Why Has Aesthetic Formalism Fallen On Hard Times?, David E.W. Fenner
Philosophy and Religious Studies Faculty Research and Scholarship
Nick Zangwill has done more than any person recently to resuscitate aesthetic formalism. I say "resuscitate" because formalism has not been in favor for several decades. Zangwill writes that "Aesthetic Formalism has fallen on hard times. At best it receives unsympathetic discussion and swift rejection. At worse it is the object of abuse and derision." The reasons many today believe aesthetic formalism is not viable have been the subject of discussion since the pendulum swing away from New Criticism, via the work of William Wimsatt, Cleanth Brooks, Clement Greenberg, André Levinson, and Heinrich Wolfflin. Most of these reasons have been …
Resolving The Tension In Aristotle's Ethic: The Balance Between Naturalism And Responsibility, David E.W. Fenner
Resolving The Tension In Aristotle's Ethic: The Balance Between Naturalism And Responsibility, David E.W. Fenner
Philosophy and Religious Studies Faculty Research and Scholarship
...It is clear that there exists in the history of ethics the problem that naturalist systems of ethics frequently fall prey to the entailment of behavioral determinism. If this occurs, it robs the ethic of doing any real work. Instead of proscribing correct and incorrect action, or allowing those considering the situation and activity to meaningfully assign praise or blame, the naive naturalist ethic functions only as a psychological thesis: that one will behave according to whatever psychological or mechanical program one is informed by.
The question of this paper was whether Aristotle's system falls prey to such a difficulty …
Are Functional Accounts Of Goodness Relativist?, David E.W. Fenner
Are Functional Accounts Of Goodness Relativist?, David E.W. Fenner
Philosophy and Religious Studies Faculty Research and Scholarship
The short answer, which will no doubt frustrate those who read to find the short answer, is yes and no. Yes in respect of the fact that all agents are not the same and so what is good for (or judged good by) one agent may be different from what is good for another agent. No in respect of the fact that normativity, or standards which range over agents relevantly similar, is still quite present. The point of this paper will be to unpack this position.