wk5 Consequentialism/utilitarianism
Consequentialisms all counsel that we act for 'the greatest good of the greatest number'/ Different versions have different accounts of the nature of that good.
-Hedonic utilitarianism: one should maximise overall pleasure
-Preference utilitarianism satisfaction: one should maximise one satisfaction of people's preferences
PArt of hte advantage of an account which has pleasure as the godot o be maximised is as follows: it's not overwhelmingly implausible, at first glance at least, that pleasure is in fact the ultimate good to which all other goods are mere means. Further, its not overwhelmingly implausible that pleasure, whether or not it's in fact such a good, is often treated as such, i.e that it is what motivates us. (these two don't have to go together.)
One can argue taht, e.g God's commands being fulfilled, are the ultimate good, without assuming that everyone (or even anyone)pursues or seeks or is motivated by such a good.
This is an advantage of Academic utilitarianism because the fact that people ultimately pursie it is a plausibility argument for the conclusion that it is in fact such a good, i .e ought to be pursued. Bentham would feel that this allows us to justify our claims about ultimate goods concretely - otherwise what's stopping you from claiming what ever you like?
Preference - satisfaction utilitarianism has similar advantages. You argue that it is good that people's preferences be satisfied (Actually this is less obviously plausibly than the pleasure case) And you argue that people are motivated by having their preferences satisfied that i am motivated by ? Good question!)
This advantage is part of what makes these views utilitarianism, as opposed to consequentialism, in general.
Not all consequentialisms have it. E.G G.E Moose felt that the ultimate goods were personal affection and relations, and aesthetic experience. It is not obvious that we are typically motivated by these, even if they are genuinely ultimate goods.
This makes the term 'ideal utilitarianism' for Moose' view something of a misnomer. (Reasons for this are rarely made clear).
Another reason why hedonic and preference satisfaction views are genuinely utilitarian and Moore's isn't, is that the former assume that there is a geniuinely ultimate single good to which all others can be reduced. As a result there is only a (technical/calculational mystery in the former as to what to do)
See williams for genuine utilitarians, all goods are commensurable.
There is a connection between this issue and the most standard anti-utilitarian argument.: that individuals, there are certain rules that one cannot rightly violate, even, if it would in some sense lead to a greater quantity of good to do so. E.g. you can't justify killing one innocent man to save the five sick people even though it might seem that the the overall outcome would be better. Because doing so would violate the one man's rights. The intuition is that you can't just weigh up the good results for the against the bad outcome for the organ doner. (You might think you can factor in the fact that you are noting to kill as an independent factor which adds badness. But this is against the consequentialist principle that the act itself gets all its moral weight is from its consequences.) Utilitariniasm seems to say that there are no exceptionless rules. Generally it is wrong to kill the innocent, but if enough good reults, it is obligatory.
Monday, 31 August 2009
his202
The real target for displeasure became the monasteries and the cathedrals.
The Church was the only massive organisation prospering in Europe - investing in the arts - building up a wealthy court.
In central europe the church from the pope down was opulent and immoral. The church was widely seen as hypocrisy and suspect.
The princes and the clergy were almost one and the same.
The clergy were splitting from the lay people for several reasons:
disproportionate wealth
hypocrisy
its obedience to a foreign pope who was considered to be no more than just an italian prince
this is all on top of difficulties in central europe. Germany, France and others were involved in a long and costly war in Italy.
Natural resources were not enough, central power was failing, shti was hitting the fan.
Prosperity was not always guaranteed.
The Church was widening the gap between itself and the people. This accounts for the difficulty the Church faced on a popular level. This is on top of the difficulties faced by theologians, philosophers and scholars on an intellectual level.
So people sought to distance themselves from the Authority of the Church and tried to find answers in their own soul. This was labelled 'devotio moderna' Modern Devotion.
This belief had a wife appeal to all - it wasn't just for the rich bishops.
Things need to reach a political imperative so some sort of action can be taken.
By following the ideas of modern devotion
by intensely studying the new testament in particular and its new translations
and by criticizing the traditional eclessiastical scholastic authorities
and Erasmus achieved a fame which appeased the un-rest in the lower classes.
The Church was the only massive organisation prospering in Europe - investing in the arts - building up a wealthy court.
In central europe the church from the pope down was opulent and immoral. The church was widely seen as hypocrisy and suspect.
The princes and the clergy were almost one and the same.
The clergy were splitting from the lay people for several reasons:
disproportionate wealth
hypocrisy
its obedience to a foreign pope who was considered to be no more than just an italian prince
this is all on top of difficulties in central europe. Germany, France and others were involved in a long and costly war in Italy.
Natural resources were not enough, central power was failing, shti was hitting the fan.
Prosperity was not always guaranteed.
The Church was widening the gap between itself and the people. This accounts for the difficulty the Church faced on a popular level. This is on top of the difficulties faced by theologians, philosophers and scholars on an intellectual level.
So people sought to distance themselves from the Authority of the Church and tried to find answers in their own soul. This was labelled 'devotio moderna' Modern Devotion.
This belief had a wife appeal to all - it wasn't just for the rich bishops.
Things need to reach a political imperative so some sort of action can be taken.
By following the ideas of modern devotion
by intensely studying the new testament in particular and its new translations
and by criticizing the traditional eclessiastical scholastic authorities
and Erasmus achieved a fame which appeased the un-rest in the lower classes.
Supernatural and preternatural are absent.
The horror is that this 'monster' occurs in a completely rational world.
Frankenstein becomes the monster
And the creation becomes the victim
Prior to receiving life the creature is regarded as noble and beautiful but once given life... is rejected.
Victor Frankenstein was brought up in a happy family.
They have a deep consciousness of what they owe towards the being that which give them life (the parents)
and this stands in stark contrast to Frankenstein who has no consciousness over what he has given life.
Frankenstein doesn't see the irony.
The monster is a living rebuke to his maker. Unlike his parents, Dr. Frankenstein is not animated by a spirit or tenderness - rather he is motivated by ambition, the quest for glory. (Which links back to the first bit - DO NOT GO THERE - DO NOT GIVE IN TO THIS FOUL THING)
Mary Shelley - fascinated by the nature/nurture debate. (Am I the way I am because of the way I was raised or because of some natural gift?)
Frankenstrain is an exploration of the influence of literature and learning on the tabula rasa.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy - the monster becomes a monster because we make him one.
It is ironic that Frankenstein contrasts himself with Cleval.
The novel has no omniscient narrator.
Frankenstein is a maze of story telling.
The monster loses his primal innocence through education. Literature teaches him good and evil.
This fall (yet raise in knowledge) makes him aware of himself as an outsider.
"Many times I felt Satan a fitter rendition"
There is a work called monsters from the Yid by E. Michael Jones which talks about the relationship between horror, the emergence of horror in literature from the time of the romantics, and in cinema in the 20th century, the relationship between that and an anxiety between sexual liberation.
One of the themes in these works is the abandonment of a child by the parent.
The ancient mariner - influence
Walton wanted to be a poetic genius. And he fails in this so he compensates in his poetic failure by exploring the Arctic. It is like the exploration of land and sea mirrors the investigations of the poetic way. Analagus.
Walton's quest for knowledge and discovery parallels that of Victor Frankenstein and the monster. But there is an important difference between them.
There is a person who comes to the edge of the abyss and pulls back and there is the one who steps over.
What's the fundamental difference between those two temperaments.
Unlike Victor Frankenstein, Walton turns back from the brink. He turns back to England - to civilisation - back to normality.
Thereby showing that his earlier failure as a poet flowed from his temperament - he doesn't explore and test beyond certain limits - unlike the romantics as they imagined themselves.
Frankenstein by contrast - despite everything he has suffered - never loses the spirit of adventure - and so something that is considered glorious, noble (This pursuit of knowledge) is also shown to have a negative side, by Shelley.
The horror is that this 'monster' occurs in a completely rational world.
Frankenstein becomes the monster
And the creation becomes the victim
Prior to receiving life the creature is regarded as noble and beautiful but once given life... is rejected.
Victor Frankenstein was brought up in a happy family.
They have a deep consciousness of what they owe towards the being that which give them life (the parents)
and this stands in stark contrast to Frankenstein who has no consciousness over what he has given life.
Frankenstein doesn't see the irony.
The monster is a living rebuke to his maker. Unlike his parents, Dr. Frankenstein is not animated by a spirit or tenderness - rather he is motivated by ambition, the quest for glory. (Which links back to the first bit - DO NOT GO THERE - DO NOT GIVE IN TO THIS FOUL THING)
Mary Shelley - fascinated by the nature/nurture debate. (Am I the way I am because of the way I was raised or because of some natural gift?)
Frankenstrain is an exploration of the influence of literature and learning on the tabula rasa.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy - the monster becomes a monster because we make him one.
It is ironic that Frankenstein contrasts himself with Cleval.
The novel has no omniscient narrator.
Frankenstein is a maze of story telling.
The monster loses his primal innocence through education. Literature teaches him good and evil.
This fall (yet raise in knowledge) makes him aware of himself as an outsider.
"Many times I felt Satan a fitter rendition"
There is a work called monsters from the Yid by E. Michael Jones which talks about the relationship between horror, the emergence of horror in literature from the time of the romantics, and in cinema in the 20th century, the relationship between that and an anxiety between sexual liberation.
One of the themes in these works is the abandonment of a child by the parent.
The ancient mariner - influence
Walton wanted to be a poetic genius. And he fails in this so he compensates in his poetic failure by exploring the Arctic. It is like the exploration of land and sea mirrors the investigations of the poetic way. Analagus.
Walton's quest for knowledge and discovery parallels that of Victor Frankenstein and the monster. But there is an important difference between them.
There is a person who comes to the edge of the abyss and pulls back and there is the one who steps over.
What's the fundamental difference between those two temperaments.
Unlike Victor Frankenstein, Walton turns back from the brink. He turns back to England - to civilisation - back to normality.
Thereby showing that his earlier failure as a poet flowed from his temperament - he doesn't explore and test beyond certain limits - unlike the romantics as they imagined themselves.
Frankenstein by contrast - despite everything he has suffered - never loses the spirit of adventure - and so something that is considered glorious, noble (This pursuit of knowledge) is also shown to have a negative side, by Shelley.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
The202
Puritanism.
Go into a Gothic church and find the stained glass windows have been removed, amongst other things. It may look like it has been vandalised.
Go into a Gothic church and find the stained glass windows have been removed, amongst other things. It may look like it has been vandalised.
Phi202
Consequentialism/Utilitarianism
Up till now we've looked mainly at descriptive issues.
Metaphysical issues - e.g are there moral facts?
Semantical issues - e.g is a moral statement a description or a prescription?
^^Those are descriptive issues
Strictly speaking, only the semantical issues are genuinely meta-ethical; but people often use the term loosely to mean 'a descriptive issue in ethics'.
Relativism has some normative component, but the focus is on the meta-ethical/descriptive.
The theories we'll be looking at in the next few weeks are ones where the normative component is central.
(The meta-ethical component can generally be taken to be factualist, roughly)
For now, assume these theories to agree that there is a fact of the matter as to what is good/bad, right/wrong.
Recall that normative theories roughly speaking fall into three classes: Consequentialist (good/bad consequences), deontological (right/wrong rules), aretoic (virtuous/dispositions)
Consequentialist: Different situations, involve/contain different amounts of good. The right thing to do at any point is to choose the option available to you that will have the best consequences in terms of goodness. The right thing to do is to maximise good consequences.
Consequentlialism is consistent with a number of different views as to what sort of goodness to define rightness in terms of. Historically, the original consequentialist theories chose a certain sort of feature to play this rightness determining role.
Theories which invoke that notion of goodness are utilitarian.
The stereotypical utilitarian theory is hedonic utilitiarianism. This was first systematically formulated by English radical Jeremy Bantham.
This theory holds that the sort of good that determines rightness is pleasure. The right thing to do is to perform the act that will as a consequence produce the situation containing the most pleasure overall for atleast humanity (not egoistic hedonism). Other consequentialist theories can also count as utilitarian, depending how much the notion of goodness they invoke resembles pleasure (In certain respects which we'll attempt to articulate).
Bantham took the theory very literally. All pleasure was on a par, aside from its intensity, quality or location was immaterial. Pleasure of philosophy was no more weighty than the pleasure of beer. Human pleasure was no more weighty than animal pleasure.
Famous quote: "Prejudice aside, pustpin is as good as poetry"
The point was not libertonian. But radicalism. Bentham felt unusually for the time, that many existing laws and practices in England were unjust - e.g severely punishing acts that caused no-one displeasure/harm for what he saw as un-justified reasons of tradition.
This radical levelling quality was felt by many, even those sympathetic to reform,to be extreme. So more conventional forms of utilitarianism developed.
e/g John Stuart Mill, mid 19th c author of Itilitarianism held that pleasure could be divided into higher and lower forms.
Higher quality pleasure are accorded greater weight in the maximisation process. But still, many felt, this places at the centre of the moral universe something that does not matter very much.
So why not dump pleasure entirely at the relevant notion or the good to be maximised.
Up till now we've looked mainly at descriptive issues.
Metaphysical issues - e.g are there moral facts?
Semantical issues - e.g is a moral statement a description or a prescription?
^^Those are descriptive issues
Strictly speaking, only the semantical issues are genuinely meta-ethical; but people often use the term loosely to mean 'a descriptive issue in ethics'.
Relativism has some normative component, but the focus is on the meta-ethical/descriptive.
The theories we'll be looking at in the next few weeks are ones where the normative component is central.
(The meta-ethical component can generally be taken to be factualist, roughly)
For now, assume these theories to agree that there is a fact of the matter as to what is good/bad, right/wrong.
Recall that normative theories roughly speaking fall into three classes: Consequentialist (good/bad consequences), deontological (right/wrong rules), aretoic (virtuous/dispositions)
Consequentialist: Different situations, involve/contain different amounts of good. The right thing to do at any point is to choose the option available to you that will have the best consequences in terms of goodness. The right thing to do is to maximise good consequences.
Consequentlialism is consistent with a number of different views as to what sort of goodness to define rightness in terms of. Historically, the original consequentialist theories chose a certain sort of feature to play this rightness determining role.
Theories which invoke that notion of goodness are utilitarian.
The stereotypical utilitarian theory is hedonic utilitiarianism. This was first systematically formulated by English radical Jeremy Bantham.
This theory holds that the sort of good that determines rightness is pleasure. The right thing to do is to perform the act that will as a consequence produce the situation containing the most pleasure overall for atleast humanity (not egoistic hedonism). Other consequentialist theories can also count as utilitarian, depending how much the notion of goodness they invoke resembles pleasure (In certain respects which we'll attempt to articulate).
Bantham took the theory very literally. All pleasure was on a par, aside from its intensity, quality or location was immaterial. Pleasure of philosophy was no more weighty than the pleasure of beer. Human pleasure was no more weighty than animal pleasure.
Famous quote: "Prejudice aside, pustpin is as good as poetry"
The point was not libertonian. But radicalism. Bentham felt unusually for the time, that many existing laws and practices in England were unjust - e.g severely punishing acts that caused no-one displeasure/harm for what he saw as un-justified reasons of tradition.
This radical levelling quality was felt by many, even those sympathetic to reform,to be extreme. So more conventional forms of utilitarianism developed.
e/g John Stuart Mill, mid 19th c author of Itilitarianism held that pleasure could be divided into higher and lower forms.
Higher quality pleasure are accorded greater weight in the maximisation process. But still, many felt, this places at the centre of the moral universe something that does not matter very much.
So why not dump pleasure entirely at the relevant notion or the good to be maximised.
His202
The tennsion in Europe late 15, early 16th century is part of a large complex issue whilst also so are the human tendencies of the humanist intellectuals, all of this feeds into our understanding of the reformation.
Boccacio - 15th century.
Machiavelli - early 16th
These works highlighted the issues which gave rise to the reformation.
The most dramatic example of the anxiety is both the rise and the fall of Savanarola in Florence. This moral imperative to look towards a charismatic monk in a time of some peril in Florence and at the same time that revulsion of just a few years later of that charismatic monk when things were going well. The easy tendency to view clerical monks, bishops, popes as humans, they are fallible. Religious tension.
Marsilio Ficino - egyptian contemporary of Moses.
Hermetic writings are more in the style of the Gnostic traditions - not 17th century writings. (Neo platonism)
The gnostics sought the truth out themselves. They took it quite far.
Separation of mind and body. The idea of the soul being present inside of the body but separate from physical corruption of the body.
These texts were used to challenge Aristotelian theories with more emphasis placed on 'magic' - astrology, alchemy, medicine, application of mystical cures.
A philosophy of nature that embraces everything.
Hermes Trismegistus is represented as a magician. Finding the balances and harmonies between all natural and supernatural things.
The whole universe is subject to this harmony of sun, moon and earth.
There are several images of Hermes balancing all these ideas.
There is an appeal of Hermetic philosophy in this period - 15th and 16th centuries. They argued that their way of thinking was more compatible with Christian values rather than Aristotelianism or Thomism.
In Aristotelianism God did not move. The ambiguity of this is somewhat of a problem - so the hermetic, gnostic approach nullifies that problem. So it chimed in with many Christian values. Many people believed that hermetic philosophy would complete Christian theology.
*refer to picture of alchemist's lab* the musical instruments are there because you find harmony in the mathematical precision of music and this mirrors the idea that you can find harmony in the universe via mathematics.
this picture is an excellent example of perspective. Also light and darkness.
It is a scene full of life - in a sense that there are things that are happening in it - natural things.
He is alone - it is the individual that seeks achievement.
On the curtain: 'when we attend strictly to our work - God himself will help us"
***
By the mid to late 17th century natural magic was beginning to lose its appeal to more orthodox ideas. People were finding spiritual englightenment through rational thought and empirical work - rather than just burning chemicals and such. In any case in the 15 and 16th century it was taken seriously as a way to find natural and divine knowledge. So Christian humanism is clearly evident in the revival, intepretation and use of hermetic texts.
The rise of hermeticism is an important development as it makes up the rich fabric of Christian humanism.
Reaching a spiritual communion with good, how is this done? Through what institution? Through what means? Through what text?
Because by the mid to late 17th century people started talking about science being more mechanical, less spiritual... we can't separate hermeticism and its Christian directive from the broader reformist movement.
Some hermetic elements would be re-used amongst other schools of theology.
disenchantment.
Boccacio - 15th century.
Machiavelli - early 16th
These works highlighted the issues which gave rise to the reformation.
The most dramatic example of the anxiety is both the rise and the fall of Savanarola in Florence. This moral imperative to look towards a charismatic monk in a time of some peril in Florence and at the same time that revulsion of just a few years later of that charismatic monk when things were going well. The easy tendency to view clerical monks, bishops, popes as humans, they are fallible. Religious tension.
Marsilio Ficino - egyptian contemporary of Moses.
Hermetic writings are more in the style of the Gnostic traditions - not 17th century writings. (Neo platonism)
The gnostics sought the truth out themselves. They took it quite far.
Separation of mind and body. The idea of the soul being present inside of the body but separate from physical corruption of the body.
These texts were used to challenge Aristotelian theories with more emphasis placed on 'magic' - astrology, alchemy, medicine, application of mystical cures.
A philosophy of nature that embraces everything.
Hermes Trismegistus is represented as a magician. Finding the balances and harmonies between all natural and supernatural things.
The whole universe is subject to this harmony of sun, moon and earth.
There are several images of Hermes balancing all these ideas.
There is an appeal of Hermetic philosophy in this period - 15th and 16th centuries. They argued that their way of thinking was more compatible with Christian values rather than Aristotelianism or Thomism.
In Aristotelianism God did not move. The ambiguity of this is somewhat of a problem - so the hermetic, gnostic approach nullifies that problem. So it chimed in with many Christian values. Many people believed that hermetic philosophy would complete Christian theology.
*refer to picture of alchemist's lab* the musical instruments are there because you find harmony in the mathematical precision of music and this mirrors the idea that you can find harmony in the universe via mathematics.
this picture is an excellent example of perspective. Also light and darkness.
It is a scene full of life - in a sense that there are things that are happening in it - natural things.
He is alone - it is the individual that seeks achievement.
On the curtain: 'when we attend strictly to our work - God himself will help us"
***
By the mid to late 17th century natural magic was beginning to lose its appeal to more orthodox ideas. People were finding spiritual englightenment through rational thought and empirical work - rather than just burning chemicals and such. In any case in the 15 and 16th century it was taken seriously as a way to find natural and divine knowledge. So Christian humanism is clearly evident in the revival, intepretation and use of hermetic texts.
The rise of hermeticism is an important development as it makes up the rich fabric of Christian humanism.
Reaching a spiritual communion with good, how is this done? Through what institution? Through what means? Through what text?
Because by the mid to late 17th century people started talking about science being more mechanical, less spiritual... we can't separate hermeticism and its Christian directive from the broader reformist movement.
Some hermetic elements would be re-used amongst other schools of theology.
disenchantment.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Monday, 24 August 2009
phi202
Hume
Positivist Verification Principle
If a statement is cognitively meaningful, i.e has a truth value, is truth evaluable, then it falls into one of two categories.
First category:
Empirical Statements
Observationally definable. True at some and false at others.
Positivist assumes that any two different worlds differ in terms of some observation you'd make if you lived there.
These are empirically verifiable, which means that the truth of certain observation statements would render it true.
Also, its being true or false makes a difference to observation.
Second Category:
Analogically true or false statements
These are ones whose truth or falsity is provable by pure logic. If logically true it's true no matter what observations you'd make logically false it's false no matter what observations you make.
The truth or falsity of empirical claims follows by reason from observation
The truth or falsity of non-empirical but meaningful claims follows by logic/reason a lone
All claims that are genuinely true or false fall into one of these categories
Relation to morality:
Positivists hold that moral statements are not truth evaluable, being expressions or prescriptions rather than descriptions. So they don't have to follow from observations via logic or from logic alone. Hume argues a similar sort of view. But he argues in the opposite direction. Instead of starting from lack of truth value and saying that therefore the moral statements aren't provable in these ways, he tries to show independently that the moral statements aren't provably in these two ways and argues from that they mustn't be genuine factually claims, but merely expressions of sentiments. Instead of describing the two categories of truths as empirical analytic, he describes them as truth of experience and matters of fact (provable from observation, using logic) vs truths of reason, relations of ideas (provable by logic alone)
Hume takes examples of moral claims and challenges us to prove them either of these two ways. He claims we can't. See page 3.1.4 of The principles of Morals
p.287
at line 337 he considers the possibility of an argument from facts of experience. If there is such an argument it must derive from the whole of the circumstances involved. Those circumstances give rise to us a certain sentiment. This sentiment is contingent and arbitrary, thus, there is no logical requirement for that sentiment to arise in us.
One can be rational and be aware of the facts and fail to feel the moral response. So you can't using logic derive the moral disapproval from the observational facts. (note here the modern era assumption that you aren't illogical if you are a mad scientist who sees the world happy and wants to break it - you are evil, nasty, weird but not necessarily irrational.)
All the more you can't derive the moral response from pure reason. For Hume, the moral response is rationally arbitrary and is a species of animal sympathy.
Positivist Verification Principle
If a statement is cognitively meaningful, i.e has a truth value, is truth evaluable, then it falls into one of two categories.
First category:
Empirical Statements
Observationally definable. True at some and false at others.
Positivist assumes that any two different worlds differ in terms of some observation you'd make if you lived there.
These are empirically verifiable, which means that the truth of certain observation statements would render it true.
Also, its being true or false makes a difference to observation.
Second Category:
Analogically true or false statements
These are ones whose truth or falsity is provable by pure logic. If logically true it's true no matter what observations you'd make logically false it's false no matter what observations you make.
The truth or falsity of empirical claims follows by reason from observation
The truth or falsity of non-empirical but meaningful claims follows by logic/reason a lone
All claims that are genuinely true or false fall into one of these categories
Relation to morality:
Positivists hold that moral statements are not truth evaluable, being expressions or prescriptions rather than descriptions. So they don't have to follow from observations via logic or from logic alone. Hume argues a similar sort of view. But he argues in the opposite direction. Instead of starting from lack of truth value and saying that therefore the moral statements aren't provable in these ways, he tries to show independently that the moral statements aren't provably in these two ways and argues from that they mustn't be genuine factually claims, but merely expressions of sentiments. Instead of describing the two categories of truths as empirical analytic, he describes them as truth of experience and matters of fact (provable from observation, using logic) vs truths of reason, relations of ideas (provable by logic alone)
Hume takes examples of moral claims and challenges us to prove them either of these two ways. He claims we can't. See page 3.1.4 of The principles of Morals
p.287
at line 337 he considers the possibility of an argument from facts of experience. If there is such an argument it must derive from the whole of the circumstances involved. Those circumstances give rise to us a certain sentiment. This sentiment is contingent and arbitrary, thus, there is no logical requirement for that sentiment to arise in us.
One can be rational and be aware of the facts and fail to feel the moral response. So you can't using logic derive the moral disapproval from the observational facts. (note here the modern era assumption that you aren't illogical if you are a mad scientist who sees the world happy and wants to break it - you are evil, nasty, weird but not necessarily irrational.)
All the more you can't derive the moral response from pure reason. For Hume, the moral response is rationally arbitrary and is a species of animal sympathy.
His202
Sixteenth-Century Religion and Politics
These works can be regarded as secular works.
Religion was widespread in Europe and was present in every European government by the 16th century.
Business dealings would take place in Churches. Churches are part of the public spaces of city-states in this period and therefore religion is intertwined with daily life in that respect. There's also daily contact with clergy. Thus, there are many religious icons/symbols and monuments found around the city.
Charismatic monks walked around preaching reform - Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498)
1512, Florence under the thumb of the French - Florence was nostalgic about the old times when Medici power ruled - this brought about a renewal in Medici power in Florence and Rome.
These works can be regarded as secular works.
Religion was widespread in Europe and was present in every European government by the 16th century.
Business dealings would take place in Churches. Churches are part of the public spaces of city-states in this period and therefore religion is intertwined with daily life in that respect. There's also daily contact with clergy. Thus, there are many religious icons/symbols and monuments found around the city.
Charismatic monks walked around preaching reform - Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498)
1512, Florence under the thumb of the French - Florence was nostalgic about the old times when Medici power ruled - this brought about a renewal in Medici power in Florence and Rome.
Lit202
Beethoven exact contemporary of Wordsworth.
Jean Jacques Rouceau
Romantics:
First Gen. Wordsworth, Coleridge and Blake. (Lake School)
Lord Byron (Demonic School)
Second Gen. Keats, Mary Shelley and Byron (Dominic School)
Yet they all fall under the Romantic School umbrella - even though they didn't know it at the time.
Chivalry (mediaevalism), obsession,
The romantics get fed up with the rationalism. They are obsessed with death and thus focus on the beauty in life because they truly understand just how important it is. Life is the only one we have. Thus they wish to be happy, ignorant and blissful. But they can't because they are too intelligent, they know the answers and thus there is a reaction to this - and that is to be melancholy.
Reason
Imagination
Irrational
Fancy
Pantheism
Beauty
Love
Wonder
Tragedy
Anti-Authoritarian
Anti-organised religion
Pseudo-Medieval
Modern
Supernatural
Preternatural
Horror
Revolution
Atheism
Prophecy
Rusticity
Sensation
Reason and imagination were praised by Wordsworth. Blake despised reason.
Reason was often set in opposition to feeling, emotion, imagination.
Modern society - a corruption of man's intrinsic nature, dignity, which is corrupted by systems. - Roceau.
The naked dignity of man in Frankenstein.
Chimney sweeps - children being over-worked was justified by the idea of them going to heaven for working.
Blake held a belief about the importance of poets in society. He sought to elucidate the hypocrisy of religious men and women. More than Wordsworth and Coleridge, however, he uses satire and irony to illuminate his ideas.
The reduction of religion to moral precepts. (Binding with briars) the garden of love, p.94.
Wordsworth - give freedom to reason - unrestrained by tradition. Able to take a critical view of religion - to assess it with the aid of pure reason.
Human kind a thread to nature. Romantic idea. Disruption of the harmony between man and nature.
Wordsworth believed, that instead of standing over nature - we should humble and awe in nature.
There is no horror in any of Wordsworth's poems.
Blake, Wordsworth and Coleridge attempted to restore a sense of spirituality to nature and humanity.
There is a religious question to the romantic movement.
Jean Jacques Rouceau
Romantics:
First Gen. Wordsworth, Coleridge and Blake. (Lake School)
Lord Byron (Demonic School)
Second Gen. Keats, Mary Shelley and Byron (Dominic School)
Yet they all fall under the Romantic School umbrella - even though they didn't know it at the time.
Chivalry (mediaevalism), obsession,
The romantics get fed up with the rationalism. They are obsessed with death and thus focus on the beauty in life because they truly understand just how important it is. Life is the only one we have. Thus they wish to be happy, ignorant and blissful. But they can't because they are too intelligent, they know the answers and thus there is a reaction to this - and that is to be melancholy.
Reason
Imagination
Irrational
Fancy
Pantheism
Beauty
Love
Wonder
Tragedy
Anti-Authoritarian
Anti-organised religion
Pseudo-Medieval
Modern
Supernatural
Preternatural
Horror
Revolution
Atheism
Prophecy
Rusticity
Sensation
Reason and imagination were praised by Wordsworth. Blake despised reason.
Reason was often set in opposition to feeling, emotion, imagination.
Modern society - a corruption of man's intrinsic nature, dignity, which is corrupted by systems. - Roceau.
The naked dignity of man in Frankenstein.
Chimney sweeps - children being over-worked was justified by the idea of them going to heaven for working.
Blake held a belief about the importance of poets in society. He sought to elucidate the hypocrisy of religious men and women. More than Wordsworth and Coleridge, however, he uses satire and irony to illuminate his ideas.
The reduction of religion to moral precepts. (Binding with briars) the garden of love, p.94.
Wordsworth - give freedom to reason - unrestrained by tradition. Able to take a critical view of religion - to assess it with the aid of pure reason.
Human kind a thread to nature. Romantic idea. Disruption of the harmony between man and nature.
Wordsworth believed, that instead of standing over nature - we should humble and awe in nature.
There is no horror in any of Wordsworth's poems.
Blake, Wordsworth and Coleridge attempted to restore a sense of spirituality to nature and humanity.
There is a religious question to the romantic movement.
Sunday, 23 August 2009
phi202 Hume
Hume
Anti-realist re-cap.
Difference between relativists and other anti-realists.
Normative: relativism involves dissapproving of condemnation of out-group practices.
Other anti-realisms do not necessarily require such disapproval.
Descriptive: Relativists hold that such condemnation is 'irrational', given non-existence of moral facts. Other anti-realists think that you can rationally engage in such condemnation, even given non-existence of moral facts.
**************separate*************** disapproval and approval are not one and the same between part 1 and part 2 above and below
1. Naive subjectivism
They have this view: "X is good" means "I (or, my group) approves of x".
Standard objection: no contradiction between 'I approve of x' and 'I don't.' This view doesn't allow for moral conflict.
2. Emotivism
N.S says that your moral statements describe your sentiments of approval and disapproval.
The Emotivist says that moral statements don't describe your sentiments but express them.
Standard objection: Theory makes no sense when applied to cases where are moral statement is embedded in a larger sentence. E.g: "I wonder whether it's wrong to steal." According to the Emotivist 'it's wrong to steal' is equivalent to stealing.
But then 'I wonder' changes the scene. And thus it cannot be equated to stealing (it is neither true nor false).
Nonsense like: 'I wonder whether: ouch!"
'I wonder whether' can only be prefixed to a statement that is true or false.
"If liberal democracy is just then people will support it"
'If democracy, yay!' then people will support democracy.
According to emotivism.
3. Prescriptivism
Moral statements are emotive but they aren't descriptive either - they are prescriptive (hidden imperatives)
"Doing X is wrong" = "Hey, everyone, don't do X"
Standard objection: same as emotivism. Same problem or less because, again, moral statements are held to be without truth-value.
Hume and the background to anti-realism:
Emotivism and prescriptivism are 20th century views. These views derive from early 20th century Logical Positivism, and in particular logical positivists doctrines about meaning. Logical positivists held that if a sentence is going to be cognitively meaningful (i.e if it is to have a truth value) then it must fall into one of two categories. Either:
(A) it can be proved logically (e.g "p or not p")
(B) it's truth would make a difference to observation
ie you can lay out observations that distinguish the situation under which it's true from there to which it's false.
Obersvations which would make the statement true are verifying observations. This whole criteria of meaningfulness knowing the veritability criterion. There existed various versions of verious degrees of strictness.
Examples: 'mimsy were the baragues" is intuitively without truth-value and comes out that way according to one verifiability criterion.
"There is an evil demon causing our experiences" presented as a meaningful possibility but was according to positivists actually without truth value.
^^presented as a meaningful possibility but was according to positivists actually witohut truth-value.
Debating the truth of this statement was discouraged by positivists on the grounds that to do so was confuse. However, they agreed that there was a problem with uttering cognitive meaningless (truth valueless) statements as long as you were aware of it (and your interlocutors were aware as well).
So they held that it was not irrational to make moral statements, as long as you were aware that you weren't making a claim with a truth-value.
Anti-realist re-cap.
Difference between relativists and other anti-realists.
Normative: relativism involves dissapproving of condemnation of out-group practices.
Other anti-realisms do not necessarily require such disapproval.
Descriptive: Relativists hold that such condemnation is 'irrational', given non-existence of moral facts. Other anti-realists think that you can rationally engage in such condemnation, even given non-existence of moral facts.
**************separate*************** disapproval and approval are not one and the same between part 1 and part 2 above and below
1. Naive subjectivism
They have this view: "X is good" means "I (or, my group) approves of x".
Standard objection: no contradiction between 'I approve of x' and 'I don't.' This view doesn't allow for moral conflict.
2. Emotivism
N.S says that your moral statements describe your sentiments of approval and disapproval.
The Emotivist says that moral statements don't describe your sentiments but express them.
Standard objection: Theory makes no sense when applied to cases where are moral statement is embedded in a larger sentence. E.g: "I wonder whether it's wrong to steal." According to the Emotivist 'it's wrong to steal' is equivalent to stealing.
But then 'I wonder' changes the scene. And thus it cannot be equated to stealing (it is neither true nor false).
Nonsense like: 'I wonder whether: ouch!"
'I wonder whether' can only be prefixed to a statement that is true or false.
"If liberal democracy is just then people will support it"
'If democracy, yay!' then people will support democracy.
According to emotivism.
3. Prescriptivism
Moral statements are emotive but they aren't descriptive either - they are prescriptive (hidden imperatives)
"Doing X is wrong" = "Hey, everyone, don't do X"
Standard objection: same as emotivism. Same problem or less because, again, moral statements are held to be without truth-value.
Hume and the background to anti-realism:
Emotivism and prescriptivism are 20th century views. These views derive from early 20th century Logical Positivism, and in particular logical positivists doctrines about meaning. Logical positivists held that if a sentence is going to be cognitively meaningful (i.e if it is to have a truth value) then it must fall into one of two categories. Either:
(A) it can be proved logically (e.g "p or not p")
(B) it's truth would make a difference to observation
ie you can lay out observations that distinguish the situation under which it's true from there to which it's false.
Obersvations which would make the statement true are verifying observations. This whole criteria of meaningfulness knowing the veritability criterion. There existed various versions of verious degrees of strictness.
Examples: 'mimsy were the baragues" is intuitively without truth-value and comes out that way according to one verifiability criterion.
"There is an evil demon causing our experiences" presented as a meaningful possibility but was according to positivists actually without truth value.
^^presented as a meaningful possibility but was according to positivists actually witohut truth-value.
Debating the truth of this statement was discouraged by positivists on the grounds that to do so was confuse. However, they agreed that there was a problem with uttering cognitive meaningless (truth valueless) statements as long as you were aware of it (and your interlocutors were aware as well).
So they held that it was not irrational to make moral statements, as long as you were aware that you weren't making a claim with a truth-value.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Phi202
Wk 2.2 More Anti-realism.
Some arguments for the prime anti-realist doctrine that tend to be invoked by anti-realists who are not relativists.
The argument is that moral properties do not seem to bear the relation to observation that you would expect a real property to bear. With uncontroversially real properties, e.g. the scientific property of being a proton, when you move an instance (e.g via a bubble-chemical track) the fast that it is an in of the property helps explain the fact of your making the ok judgement. In contrast, supposedly, when you observe an instance of wrongness, the fact that the act was an instance of wrongness was not needed to explain your judgement. All that's needed to explain your moral judgement is the fact that such acts are treated as wrong by the group in which you were brought up. You would have made the judgement whether or not the act was really wrong, as long as your upholding the remained unaltered.
Respones the non-moral judgement can be explained in the same way, invoking only the fact that the scientific community in which you were treats the bubbles as evidence of a proton. Leeping your thinking you would have made the same judgement if there were no protons.
This illustrates the anti-realist idea that one way or another moral
Some arguments for the prime anti-realist doctrine that tend to be invoked by anti-realists who are not relativists.
The argument is that moral properties do not seem to bear the relation to observation that you would expect a real property to bear. With uncontroversially real properties, e.g. the scientific property of being a proton, when you move an instance (e.g via a bubble-chemical track) the fast that it is an in of the property helps explain the fact of your making the ok judgement. In contrast, supposedly, when you observe an instance of wrongness, the fact that the act was an instance of wrongness was not needed to explain your judgement. All that's needed to explain your moral judgement is the fact that such acts are treated as wrong by the group in which you were brought up. You would have made the judgement whether or not the act was really wrong, as long as your upholding the remained unaltered.
Respones the non-moral judgement can be explained in the same way, invoking only the fact that the scientific community in which you were treats the bubbles as evidence of a proton. Leeping your thinking you would have made the same judgement if there were no protons.
This illustrates the anti-realist idea that one way or another moral
His202
The florentines remained largely neutral, keeping treaties with nearly all the warring parties. Which is both a virtue and a fault. It is a virtue because they don't have to be involved in the costs of war - but it is a shortcoming because it makes them look like they are not interested, lethargic, etc.
While the Medici family was in exile Rome became the HQ.
Guicciardini (1483-1540) was a fan of Tacitus and modelled his work on Tacitus' history of the Roman wars.
Machiavelli (1469-1527) - born into nobility. He grew up during the golden area of Lorzeno
Was a diplomat, a representative of the government. He was part of the government that the Medici family wanted to over throw. For the rest of his life he was really condemned by the Medici family.
While the Medici family was in exile Rome became the HQ.
Guicciardini (1483-1540) was a fan of Tacitus and modelled his work on Tacitus' history of the Roman wars.
Machiavelli (1469-1527) - born into nobility. He grew up during the golden area of Lorzeno
Was a diplomat, a representative of the government. He was part of the government that the Medici family wanted to over throw. For the rest of his life he was really condemned by the Medici family.
Lit202
Romantic desire to escape to the country.
Gray's speaker seems to enter this scene as an outsider. The title suggests this, the Church yard is a country church yard. It consciously draws attention to the relative uniqueness to the poet and the presumed reader. How do we know that? Because a man born and raised in the country would not refer to his church yard as a country church yard.
The title refers to the poem and what someone may write about him (the poet) in the church yard one day.
The poem is the poet's own elegy.
when we elegise someone we mournfully commemorate them. The elegy is traditionally a song, and it has come to be associated with a poem.
He is lamenting his death. It mourns those whose bodies lie in the church yard and he commemorates them. He imagines their lives.
The movement from afternoon to evening, day to night is a conventional image of life to death, activity to rest.
The lines describes a descending movement of perspective. The curfew tells...
Cosmic, to the animal, to the anonymously human, and then to the individual.
Sybillance - solemn stillness holdS
This is indeed a solemn poem. And the poet is held by this solemn stillness. Contrasted by the movement in stanza 1.
Sight and sound juxtapose each other. Sight gives way to sound - Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight.
Although these sounds suggest life holding out against death, movement against stillness, activity against slumber, instead it does the opposite. "The distant folds are lulled by the drowsy tinklings" Sensory perception and indeed the sounds, become acute in the fading light. The details of life are thrown into reflection as the day is ending. As visual perception disappears the character starts to notice all these interesting and quaint sounds.
The beetle's flight goes unnoticed in a day of activity. This is important - it explicates the recognition of those that we normally overlook. So as stillness comes, we begin to ponder on the lives of these people who are overlooked.
Moping suggests inactivity. Indulging in melancholy, as it were.
An important theme to consider is, solitude. The man, like the owl, is alone. But in the case of the owl, solitude is its preferred case of being. We suspect, however, that the man alone is in fact loneliness.
A bower is an enclosed space, a sanctuary. And there is some irony here - that the setting of the poem is the ultimate place of rest - a graveyard. The solitary reign of the owl is precisely the reigning over of the night time and over the dead and she is complaining to the moon that this is being interrupted. and we can assume that this interruption is the speaker.
The elm tree has long symbolised strength and ruggedness. These trees have a symbolic overtone but they are also normal fixtures of an English graveyard - nonetheless, their symbolism which is perhaps derived from their association with graveyards is known to the poet. These trees stand for life that is still going on - standing above what is below them, death. From these dead people they take their life.
Life and death, inactivity and activity - beautifully intertwined in line 2, stanza 4.
Stanza 5 is all about life and throws into relief the theme of death, sleep, inactivity.
Stanza 6 re-iterates that theme. Here also is an example of the good life. Celebrated by the Ancients, Virgil, (georgics) right through to the present day.
The senates
They are denied of doing great things, and also from doing terrible things. They weren't given a chance because of their lot in life.
The last lingering look on life the dying have as they leave life.
"hasty steps brushing the dews away" The sense of vibrancy in a new day. This solitary figure, the speaker, imagines being remembered as one who went to meet the sun as one who looked at the babbling brook, who poured over it, who experienced it. He is consumed by feeling, this pleasing anxious being, as he calls it.
Gray's speaker seems to enter this scene as an outsider. The title suggests this, the Church yard is a country church yard. It consciously draws attention to the relative uniqueness to the poet and the presumed reader. How do we know that? Because a man born and raised in the country would not refer to his church yard as a country church yard.
The title refers to the poem and what someone may write about him (the poet) in the church yard one day.
The poem is the poet's own elegy.
when we elegise someone we mournfully commemorate them. The elegy is traditionally a song, and it has come to be associated with a poem.
He is lamenting his death. It mourns those whose bodies lie in the church yard and he commemorates them. He imagines their lives.
The movement from afternoon to evening, day to night is a conventional image of life to death, activity to rest.
The lines describes a descending movement of perspective. The curfew tells...
Cosmic, to the animal, to the anonymously human, and then to the individual.
Sybillance - solemn stillness holdS
This is indeed a solemn poem. And the poet is held by this solemn stillness. Contrasted by the movement in stanza 1.
Sight and sound juxtapose each other. Sight gives way to sound - Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight.
Although these sounds suggest life holding out against death, movement against stillness, activity against slumber, instead it does the opposite. "The distant folds are lulled by the drowsy tinklings" Sensory perception and indeed the sounds, become acute in the fading light. The details of life are thrown into reflection as the day is ending. As visual perception disappears the character starts to notice all these interesting and quaint sounds.
The beetle's flight goes unnoticed in a day of activity. This is important - it explicates the recognition of those that we normally overlook. So as stillness comes, we begin to ponder on the lives of these people who are overlooked.
Moping suggests inactivity. Indulging in melancholy, as it were.
An important theme to consider is, solitude. The man, like the owl, is alone. But in the case of the owl, solitude is its preferred case of being. We suspect, however, that the man alone is in fact loneliness.
A bower is an enclosed space, a sanctuary. And there is some irony here - that the setting of the poem is the ultimate place of rest - a graveyard. The solitary reign of the owl is precisely the reigning over of the night time and over the dead and she is complaining to the moon that this is being interrupted. and we can assume that this interruption is the speaker.
The elm tree has long symbolised strength and ruggedness. These trees have a symbolic overtone but they are also normal fixtures of an English graveyard - nonetheless, their symbolism which is perhaps derived from their association with graveyards is known to the poet. These trees stand for life that is still going on - standing above what is below them, death. From these dead people they take their life.
Life and death, inactivity and activity - beautifully intertwined in line 2, stanza 4.
Stanza 5 is all about life and throws into relief the theme of death, sleep, inactivity.
Stanza 6 re-iterates that theme. Here also is an example of the good life. Celebrated by the Ancients, Virgil, (georgics) right through to the present day.
The senates
They are denied of doing great things, and also from doing terrible things. They weren't given a chance because of their lot in life.
The last lingering look on life the dying have as they leave life.
"hasty steps brushing the dews away" The sense of vibrancy in a new day. This solitary figure, the speaker, imagines being remembered as one who went to meet the sun as one who looked at the babbling brook, who poured over it, who experienced it. He is consumed by feeling, this pleasing anxious being, as he calls it.
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Phi202
Phi202 Moral Phil Wk3
What's wrong with relativisit meta-ethics?
We saw that relativists, nihilists and naive subjectivists all share the one background meta-ethics: no moral facts ever and above what people accept.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
prime ante-realist doctrine
They differ not just in their normative views but in the arguments they give for this Prime Anti-realist Doctrine.
Let's look at typical relativist arguments.
One argument goes as follows:
1. Moral codes differ considerably from group to group
Therefore, 2. There is no fact of the matter as to which moral code is correct.
Why would anyone think that this little argument is valid. Groups differ widely in non-moral statements they accept as true or false, just as much as in this case of moral statements. E.g "the Earth is flat." was subject to dispute and "evolution occurs" still is. No one much at least concludes thereby that there is no unrelativised fact of the matter as to whether the statements are true.
It is plausible that what is really going on here is that relativists are assuming the prime anti-realist doctrine that they claim to be arguing for. If there are no moral facts over and above what people accept then the only thing very like objectivity you can hope for is intersubjectivity, which is agreement as what to trust is true. So if we assume that there are no objective moral facts, lack of intersubjectivity as well becomes interesting. But this is not an argument for the assumptions - at beast it's an illustration of its consequences.
(Such illustrations can sometimes make a view plausible. You show people what the world looks like assuming your view and hope that they find it the best explanation of all the candidate views)
So the argument as it stands is not valud.
It's also arguable that the inference from 1 to 2 even if it were valid, would not be sound, as a general matter. I.e. it is arguable that genuine disagreement doesn't extend to all moral principles.
For one thing, there appear to be some principles that are defacto universally accepted, e.g don't kill friends for fun.
For another, some apparent disagreement may be over non-moral evaluations of what the situation we face is like, as opposed to bedrock moral principle. E.g. lobster example.
This is important because, even if the relativist were to concede that disagreement doesn't entail the lack of a fact of them after, he or she could than mount a fall back response which is that even if there is a fact of the matter our differences of moral principle are so grea tthat there is no prospect of recoving rationally any important moral statute. This fallback a form of what is sometimes describes as 'incommensurability'.
What's wrong with relativisit meta-ethics?
We saw that relativists, nihilists and naive subjectivists all share the one background meta-ethics: no moral facts ever and above what people accept.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
prime ante-realist doctrine
They differ not just in their normative views but in the arguments they give for this Prime Anti-realist Doctrine.
Let's look at typical relativist arguments.
One argument goes as follows:
1. Moral codes differ considerably from group to group
Therefore, 2. There is no fact of the matter as to which moral code is correct.
Why would anyone think that this little argument is valid. Groups differ widely in non-moral statements they accept as true or false, just as much as in this case of moral statements. E.g "the Earth is flat." was subject to dispute and "evolution occurs" still is. No one much at least concludes thereby that there is no unrelativised fact of the matter as to whether the statements are true.
It is plausible that what is really going on here is that relativists are assuming the prime anti-realist doctrine that they claim to be arguing for. If there are no moral facts over and above what people accept then the only thing very like objectivity you can hope for is intersubjectivity, which is agreement as what to trust is true. So if we assume that there are no objective moral facts, lack of intersubjectivity as well becomes interesting. But this is not an argument for the assumptions - at beast it's an illustration of its consequences.
(Such illustrations can sometimes make a view plausible. You show people what the world looks like assuming your view and hope that they find it the best explanation of all the candidate views)
So the argument as it stands is not valud.
It's also arguable that the inference from 1 to 2 even if it were valid, would not be sound, as a general matter. I.e. it is arguable that genuine disagreement doesn't extend to all moral principles.
For one thing, there appear to be some principles that are defacto universally accepted, e.g don't kill friends for fun.
For another, some apparent disagreement may be over non-moral evaluations of what the situation we face is like, as opposed to bedrock moral principle. E.g. lobster example.
This is important because, even if the relativist were to concede that disagreement doesn't entail the lack of a fact of them after, he or she could than mount a fall back response which is that even if there is a fact of the matter our differences of moral principle are so grea tthat there is no prospect of recoving rationally any important moral statute. This fallback a form of what is sometimes describes as 'incommensurability'.
his202
Machiavelli's work - textualisation
When Giovanni took control of the Medici family in 1397 he began to expand it into a truly international venture. There's a lot of internal politics going on in Rome. Take, for example, Baldassare Cossa.
The nudity is emblematic of the pride of the Florentines. Donatello's 'David with Goliath's Head' is the first 3d sculpture since ancient times. It represents the values of civic life so well promoted since the middle of the 13th century. It also captures the psyche of the 15th century artists, their confidence to produce such artworks. It represents the wealth, prosperity and prominence of the Medici family. And with such prominence comes enemies. Cosimo was almost assassinated and was exiled and then allowed to return. With his enemies essentially defeated and the Signoria in his control, all decisions made in the Signoria went through the house of Medici. In the mean time he continued to pay artists to create work.
Medici, the most powerful family, the most powerful bank, the greatest patron of the arts. All of these successful ventures were not isolated but were connected and all tapping into the continuous rise of the humanitas values in the 15th century.
Lorenzo's reign was during the peak of the medici power and fortune. He was magnificent. Lorenzo de 'Medeici 'Il Magnifico' (1449-1492)
The problems that arose in Italy in the 1490's were to affect the fortune of Florentine. The constant making and breaking of alliances, Milan, constantly putting pressure on rival city states, did not help.
These skirmishes reached a crisis point in 1490. Refer to hand out - Ludovico Sforza invited Charles VIII to invade Italy.
By the early 16th century there is a lot of turmoil and this itself impacts on the type of art produced, the type of intellectual endeavours, the type of politics.
When Giovanni took control of the Medici family in 1397 he began to expand it into a truly international venture. There's a lot of internal politics going on in Rome. Take, for example, Baldassare Cossa.
The nudity is emblematic of the pride of the Florentines. Donatello's 'David with Goliath's Head' is the first 3d sculpture since ancient times. It represents the values of civic life so well promoted since the middle of the 13th century. It also captures the psyche of the 15th century artists, their confidence to produce such artworks. It represents the wealth, prosperity and prominence of the Medici family. And with such prominence comes enemies. Cosimo was almost assassinated and was exiled and then allowed to return. With his enemies essentially defeated and the Signoria in his control, all decisions made in the Signoria went through the house of Medici. In the mean time he continued to pay artists to create work.
Medici, the most powerful family, the most powerful bank, the greatest patron of the arts. All of these successful ventures were not isolated but were connected and all tapping into the continuous rise of the humanitas values in the 15th century.
Lorenzo's reign was during the peak of the medici power and fortune. He was magnificent. Lorenzo de 'Medeici 'Il Magnifico' (1449-1492)
The problems that arose in Italy in the 1490's were to affect the fortune of Florentine. The constant making and breaking of alliances, Milan, constantly putting pressure on rival city states, did not help.
These skirmishes reached a crisis point in 1490. Refer to hand out - Ludovico Sforza invited Charles VIII to invade Italy.
By the early 16th century there is a lot of turmoil and this itself impacts on the type of art produced, the type of intellectual endeavours, the type of politics.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Phi202
Nihilist/relativist/naive subjectivisit
Meta-ethical doctrines
no objective moral facts/properties i.e no facts of the matter about right/wrong, good/bad or over above the facts as to what pople in different groups accept as right/wrong, good/bad
Truth of moral statements?
(P) "it is always wrong to fight, even in self-defence"
Nihilists:
No true moral statements. All are meaningless, neither true nor false. (P) is neither true nor false.
Relativists
Not true unrelativised moral statement
(P) is true, if you mean... by Amish standards (the statement (:) answers to facts about the Amish people)
(P) is false, if you mean... "By Ghurka Standards" (ditto)
(P) is neither true nor false if you mean..."full stop, unrelativisedly" ( there is no fact of the matter
Naive subjectivist (P) always means... "According to my standards" (answers to facts about what the person uttering it accepts)
true if uttered by someone who accepts the claim and false if uttered by someone who doesn't
***
Normative aspects of these views
Nihilism and relativism each have a normative part. To see how this works, we'll start by seeing how naive subjectivism has no part. It is all purely meta-ethical.
Naive subjectivists say that you can without irrationaliy, even the given the lack of any objective moral fact, have any normative attitude you like.
Nihilists, in contrast, advocate a certain cause of action refraining from breaking any moral statement as true. Nihilists see irrationality in believing that no unrelativised moral claim is true yet treating certain moral claims as true. They see their meta-ethical beliefs as rationally compelling them to in a certain way. They sat it is irrational to treat a moral statement as a reason for actoin. You can only rationally invoke nominal reasons
e.g acting in one's egoistic self-interest can be rational. Old point of view. See Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. A sup;osedly hard-headed no-nonsense attitude.
Revolutionary 'nihilists' from the 19th century who claimed to disbelieve morality and when asked "why are you throwing this bomb?" (Trying to assassinate the minister)
would say that were acting based on reasons that were non-moral (maybe 'objectivism interests') or 'to be in conformity with the course of history' but these reasons pretty clearly were actually simple a misinterpreted moral code.
Relativisits have a very different emotional valance. Non-judgemental, 'ecumenical'.
Relativists agree that there is nothing irrational in the Amish guy treating (P) as true and in the Ghurka treating (P) as false.
However, the relativist does think that it is irrational to treat (P) as unrelativisedly true, absolutely true, as opposed to true-for-the-Amish or false-for-the-Ghurkas. In practice, this amounts to advocate the following course of action: treating (P) as true as applied to Amish and false as applied to Ghurkas. Note that this does not fit in with anyone's views. So why does this relativist advocate it?
It makes an exception to the general naive subjectivist policy of advocating no particular course of action as entailed by the meta-ethics.
Surely the most simple policy would be to go naive subjectivist.
The psychological motivation seems to be simply confusion. What relativists are thinking is: there is no objective fact of the matter, so it is unfair to advocate Amish standards over Ghurka standards this is obviously inconsistent.
Meta-ethical doctrines
no objective moral facts/properties i.e no facts of the matter about right/wrong, good/bad or over above the facts as to what pople in different groups accept as right/wrong, good/bad
Truth of moral statements?
(P) "it is always wrong to fight, even in self-defence"
Nihilists:
No true moral statements. All are meaningless, neither true nor false. (P) is neither true nor false.
Relativists
Not true unrelativised moral statement
(P) is true, if you mean... by Amish standards (the statement (:) answers to facts about the Amish people)
(P) is false, if you mean... "By Ghurka Standards" (ditto)
(P) is neither true nor false if you mean..."full stop, unrelativisedly" ( there is no fact of the matter
Naive subjectivist (P) always means... "According to my standards" (answers to facts about what the person uttering it accepts)
true if uttered by someone who accepts the claim and false if uttered by someone who doesn't
***
Normative aspects of these views
Nihilism and relativism each have a normative part. To see how this works, we'll start by seeing how naive subjectivism has no part. It is all purely meta-ethical.
Naive subjectivists say that you can without irrationaliy, even the given the lack of any objective moral fact, have any normative attitude you like.
Nihilists, in contrast, advocate a certain cause of action refraining from breaking any moral statement as true. Nihilists see irrationality in believing that no unrelativised moral claim is true yet treating certain moral claims as true. They see their meta-ethical beliefs as rationally compelling them to in a certain way. They sat it is irrational to treat a moral statement as a reason for actoin. You can only rationally invoke nominal reasons
e.g acting in one's egoistic self-interest can be rational. Old point of view. See Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. A sup;osedly hard-headed no-nonsense attitude.
Revolutionary 'nihilists' from the 19th century who claimed to disbelieve morality and when asked "why are you throwing this bomb?" (Trying to assassinate the minister)
would say that were acting based on reasons that were non-moral (maybe 'objectivism interests') or 'to be in conformity with the course of history' but these reasons pretty clearly were actually simple a misinterpreted moral code.
Relativisits have a very different emotional valance. Non-judgemental, 'ecumenical'.
Relativists agree that there is nothing irrational in the Amish guy treating (P) as true and in the Ghurka treating (P) as false.
However, the relativist does think that it is irrational to treat (P) as unrelativisedly true, absolutely true, as opposed to true-for-the-Amish or false-for-the-Ghurkas. In practice, this amounts to advocate the following course of action: treating (P) as true as applied to Amish and false as applied to Ghurkas. Note that this does not fit in with anyone's views. So why does this relativist advocate it?
It makes an exception to the general naive subjectivist policy of advocating no particular course of action as entailed by the meta-ethics.
Surely the most simple policy would be to go naive subjectivist.
The psychological motivation seems to be simply confusion. What relativists are thinking is: there is no objective fact of the matter, so it is unfair to advocate Amish standards over Ghurka standards this is obviously inconsistent.
His202
Increased social awareness about their culture and politics in this social mileu. It's an intimate social setting depending on the city life, state depending on the religious and civic spaces where much of life as a citizen of Florence is played and reliant upon a philosophy of recalling ancient Greek and Roman standards of life and culture. Civic duty and civic pride.
But these authors and these works are only one measure of renaissance humanism. Another measure is art and architecture.
The rise of the Medici family in Florence brought changes to art and architecture in Florence. It's a very dynamic culture.
Gothic churches. Space is a key concept, a physical depth that represents the great constitution that these buildings house. So it's not a select membership that can enter these churches, it's for everyone. This depth in architecture runs concurrent with themes in painting, perspective, depth.
(Massacio, The Holy Trinity, c.1425)
Giotto, Kiss of Judas, c1305
Artists were not necessarily tied down to their cities - they were willing to travel for wealthy patrons.
But these authors and these works are only one measure of renaissance humanism. Another measure is art and architecture.
The rise of the Medici family in Florence brought changes to art and architecture in Florence. It's a very dynamic culture.
Gothic churches. Space is a key concept, a physical depth that represents the great constitution that these buildings house. So it's not a select membership that can enter these churches, it's for everyone. This depth in architecture runs concurrent with themes in painting, perspective, depth.
(Massacio, The Holy Trinity, c.1425)
Giotto, Kiss of Judas, c1305
Artists were not necessarily tied down to their cities - they were willing to travel for wealthy patrons.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Phi202
phi202 moral phil. wk2
I need to distinguish the various versions of relativism. Also there are various forms of subjectivism. There is an important distinction in part of the theory. So to argue against subjectivists you'll be using different arguments than you would if you were arguing against a relativist.
Normative Ethics vs. Meta-ethics.
A normative ethical theory makes or entails claims about how one should behave; it specifies certain behaviour and describes it as right or wrong. It prescribes norms - rules for behaviour. A normative theory at least partly seeks to influence behaviour.
Such a theory is about morality itself; morality is its subject matter. A meta-ethical theory is a theory not about morality itself, but about theories of morality. More specifically, a meta-ethical theory typically tells you what people mean by "right" and "wrong". It doesn't tell you what you ought to do; it tells you what people who tell you what to do mean by "ought". Such a theory is descriptive not normative. It describes meanings, it doesn't prescribe behaviour.
This explains why "meta". Any meta-theory is a theory about another theory. A meta-ethical theory is a theory about (what is meant in) an ethical theory. The subject-matter of a theory is sometimes known as its object. So a meta-ethical theory has no ethical theory as its object.
A little complication. When people say that a theory or claim is meta-ethical, they usually mean pure meta-ethical. If a meta-ethical theory describes a number of normative theories and then claims that one of them is true, the meta-ethical theory will have normative consequences and so will not be purely meta-ethical. A purely meta-ethical theory will describe what is meant by all the number of normative theories without choosing between them.
Let's now restate things int he following way:
A normative ethical theory involves specifying certain moral statements and advocating that we treat them as true. (Restated this way, a normative theory is about ethical statements, but is not purely meta-ethical because it's describing certain statements as true, or truthful, or true-ish.)
Moral Relativism/Nihilism/Subjectivism
These views are closely related and involve both a normative part and a meta-ethical part.
They all share the same basic meta-ethical outlook, differing slightly at the edges.
Nihilists - all moral statements are straightforwardly false or meaningless
Relativists - moral statements can be true, but only relativisedly. Uncontroversial non-moral example of a claim that can be true or false only relativisedly;
"sydney is near the Eiffel tower". True if you mean "...compared to how far it is from the Adnromeda Galaxy". False if you mean "... compared to how far it is from the Louvre". Is neither true nor false, but meaningless, if you mean "...full stop, unrelativisedly".
Relativists think that moral claims like "it is always wrong to fight, even in self-defense." True if you mean "...according to Amish standards." False if you mean "... according to Samurai Standards".
Neither if you mean "full stop, unrelativisedly". The idea is that the relativist statements answer to facts about what people accept, but the unrelativist claims are supposed to have no facts to answer to.
So the relativist takes the same background picture as the nihilist and shifts it around at the edges.
I need to distinguish the various versions of relativism. Also there are various forms of subjectivism. There is an important distinction in part of the theory. So to argue against subjectivists you'll be using different arguments than you would if you were arguing against a relativist.
Normative Ethics vs. Meta-ethics.
A normative ethical theory makes or entails claims about how one should behave; it specifies certain behaviour and describes it as right or wrong. It prescribes norms - rules for behaviour. A normative theory at least partly seeks to influence behaviour.
Such a theory is about morality itself; morality is its subject matter. A meta-ethical theory is a theory not about morality itself, but about theories of morality. More specifically, a meta-ethical theory typically tells you what people mean by "right" and "wrong". It doesn't tell you what you ought to do; it tells you what people who tell you what to do mean by "ought". Such a theory is descriptive not normative. It describes meanings, it doesn't prescribe behaviour.
This explains why "meta". Any meta-theory is a theory about another theory. A meta-ethical theory is a theory about (what is meant in) an ethical theory. The subject-matter of a theory is sometimes known as its object. So a meta-ethical theory has no ethical theory as its object.
A little complication. When people say that a theory or claim is meta-ethical, they usually mean pure meta-ethical. If a meta-ethical theory describes a number of normative theories and then claims that one of them is true, the meta-ethical theory will have normative consequences and so will not be purely meta-ethical. A purely meta-ethical theory will describe what is meant by all the number of normative theories without choosing between them.
Let's now restate things int he following way:
A normative ethical theory involves specifying certain moral statements and advocating that we treat them as true. (Restated this way, a normative theory is about ethical statements, but is not purely meta-ethical because it's describing certain statements as true, or truthful, or true-ish.)
Moral Relativism/Nihilism/Subjectivism
These views are closely related and involve both a normative part and a meta-ethical part.
They all share the same basic meta-ethical outlook, differing slightly at the edges.
Nihilists - all moral statements are straightforwardly false or meaningless
Relativists - moral statements can be true, but only relativisedly. Uncontroversial non-moral example of a claim that can be true or false only relativisedly;
"sydney is near the Eiffel tower". True if you mean "...compared to how far it is from the Adnromeda Galaxy". False if you mean "... compared to how far it is from the Louvre". Is neither true nor false, but meaningless, if you mean "...full stop, unrelativisedly".
Relativists think that moral claims like "it is always wrong to fight, even in self-defense." True if you mean "...according to Amish standards." False if you mean "... according to Samurai Standards".
Neither if you mean "full stop, unrelativisedly". The idea is that the relativist statements answer to facts about what people accept, but the unrelativist claims are supposed to have no facts to answer to.
So the relativist takes the same background picture as the nihilist and shifts it around at the edges.
His202
What social climate inspired Boccacio's Decameron?
Trade and commerce going straight through the middle of the city. Florence is still dense. Lots of towers, mediaeval feature of the city, every family of some wealth or prosperity might build a tower and dedicate it to their family. Distinctive feature of medieval renaissance city states.
Signory
duke of naples. Naples was a wealthy, prosperous port town.
Florence established a republic, self governed under a type of oligarchy. This was called Signoria. Mediaeval term denoting feudal Lordship. 9 individuals made up this group, florentine male citizens, over 30, debt free and property owning and own or run a guild.
A very patriotic wealthy community led by the signoria. The whole sicilonian/petrarchian rhetoric. Pride in one's city state. This brought in new spaces in the city, plazas, churches, this is where things happen, in these civic and religious spaces.
After 16th century government of Florence fell out of the hands of the magistry and into the hands of the grand duke.
The triangles represent the welfs and the square turrets represent the others.
In Florence and Sienna the Pallazo Publico was the most important building. Florentine citizens saw it as a representation of their town and their independence. And their civic pride of the 13th century recalls the civic pride and humanism of petrarch et al.
Brumellesci was inspired by the dome of the pantheon in Rome. The idea was that Roman achievement could be replicated and improved upon. It's worth recognising the effort that went into these structures. Part of the reason of constructing things like these is to out do other rivals.
City states competed with each other not only in trade and commerce but symbolically. This becomes very important when Florence becomes the center of a region, Tuscany, and Florence has dominion over other cities.
This is also why the bell tower is so important in city states - you look to these structures to understand the cultural and economical supremacy of your city state.
In this physical environment tied to new ways of thinking, it was the centre of new movements, renaissance. Emerging philosophical ideals played out in these spaces. THEY WERE FANS OF WHAT OCCURED IN THE PAST
The petition asked for somebody to give a lecture by somebody well versed in Dante's work about Dante's work. This nails down the cultural mood of the 13 and 14' hundreds in Florence.
Boccacio's Commentary on the 'divina commedia'.
Shunning of vice. Acquisition of virtue. This is what they value. They take pride in their home grown public literature. Dante and other famous writers have a higher public status. The virtue of humanism, all citizens are desirous of being instructed in the book of Dante, so that even the unlearned may receive instruction. This passage displays the public interest in humanism in the 13 hundreds and it is very likely that something similar would never be sent to the government in our day and age.
Trade and commerce going straight through the middle of the city. Florence is still dense. Lots of towers, mediaeval feature of the city, every family of some wealth or prosperity might build a tower and dedicate it to their family. Distinctive feature of medieval renaissance city states.
Signory
duke of naples. Naples was a wealthy, prosperous port town.
Florence established a republic, self governed under a type of oligarchy. This was called Signoria. Mediaeval term denoting feudal Lordship. 9 individuals made up this group, florentine male citizens, over 30, debt free and property owning and own or run a guild.
A very patriotic wealthy community led by the signoria. The whole sicilonian/petrarchian rhetoric. Pride in one's city state. This brought in new spaces in the city, plazas, churches, this is where things happen, in these civic and religious spaces.
After 16th century government of Florence fell out of the hands of the magistry and into the hands of the grand duke.
The triangles represent the welfs and the square turrets represent the others.
In Florence and Sienna the Pallazo Publico was the most important building. Florentine citizens saw it as a representation of their town and their independence. And their civic pride of the 13th century recalls the civic pride and humanism of petrarch et al.
Brumellesci was inspired by the dome of the pantheon in Rome. The idea was that Roman achievement could be replicated and improved upon. It's worth recognising the effort that went into these structures. Part of the reason of constructing things like these is to out do other rivals.
City states competed with each other not only in trade and commerce but symbolically. This becomes very important when Florence becomes the center of a region, Tuscany, and Florence has dominion over other cities.
This is also why the bell tower is so important in city states - you look to these structures to understand the cultural and economical supremacy of your city state.
In this physical environment tied to new ways of thinking, it was the centre of new movements, renaissance. Emerging philosophical ideals played out in these spaces. THEY WERE FANS OF WHAT OCCURED IN THE PAST
The petition asked for somebody to give a lecture by somebody well versed in Dante's work about Dante's work. This nails down the cultural mood of the 13 and 14' hundreds in Florence.
Boccacio's Commentary on the 'divina commedia'.
Shunning of vice. Acquisition of virtue. This is what they value. They take pride in their home grown public literature. Dante and other famous writers have a higher public status. The virtue of humanism, all citizens are desirous of being instructed in the book of Dante, so that even the unlearned may receive instruction. This passage displays the public interest in humanism in the 13 hundreds and it is very likely that something similar would never be sent to the government in our day and age.
Monday, 3 August 2009
phi202
Good vs bad
right vs wrong
virtue vs vice
We can consider different sort of ethical/moral theory that focus on different areas of these three
Teleological/consequentialist views:
Moral evaluation is to be understood most fundamentally in terms of good vs bad situations. (good vs bad) primary moral concept for teleological theories)
Rightness/wrongness of actions
virtuousness/viciousness of people this is to be defined in terms of the goodness and badness of situations.
The right thing to do is to perform the action that will lead to the greatest amount of good, out of the option you have.
The virtuous person is the one who tends to perform the right actions.
Deontological views:
They take right/wrong as the fundamental moral notion
They argue that an act is right/wrong is determined not by its consequences
but by whether it is performed in adherence to certain rules.
A virtuous person is one that tends to act rightly, just as in the teleological views, but right action is not defined in terms of consequences.
E.g: Kant
Virtue ethics theories:
They may agree that virtue is a matter of being disposed to perform right actions but disagree that rightness of actions is always determined by actions or rules.
This is not to say that every moral rule has exceptions, but that even all the correct moral rules (something you can learn beforehand) taken together won't always tell you what the right/virtuous action to perform would be, in a given situation.
Knowing the right thing to do is itself a skill or virtue, knownness 'practical wisdom' or 'prudence' <- traditional translation of Aristotle's term 'sophrysome'.
Natural Law Ethics
Aquinas etc. This approach includes elements of the others.
The fundamental concept is 'right reason'.
These four sorts of theory focus on what's called normative ethics. They provide general principles that they claim we should conform to in our behaviour. They tell us what to do, at a certain general level. But all these theories also have a metaethical aspect. They all agree on this aspect, theory all agree that there is a fact of the matter as to what we should do and equivalently that moral claims typically have a truth value. Each is either true or false.
Some theorists disagree with this meta-ethical view.
Prescriptivists, for example, leave a view according to which (P) is neither true nor false. Why? They say "X is wrong" is equivalent in meaning to "Hey, everyone, don't do X". Just as "Close the door!" is neither true nor false.
The debate between prescriptivists and our previous friends is not over what you should do, but over what the claim "you should do X" means.
right vs wrong
virtue vs vice
We can consider different sort of ethical/moral theory that focus on different areas of these three
Teleological/consequentialist views:
Moral evaluation is to be understood most fundamentally in terms of good vs bad situations. (good vs bad) primary moral concept for teleological theories)
Rightness/wrongness of actions
virtuousness/viciousness of people this is to be defined in terms of the goodness and badness of situations.
The right thing to do is to perform the action that will lead to the greatest amount of good, out of the option you have.
The virtuous person is the one who tends to perform the right actions.
Deontological views:
They take right/wrong as the fundamental moral notion
They argue that an act is right/wrong is determined not by its consequences
but by whether it is performed in adherence to certain rules.
A virtuous person is one that tends to act rightly, just as in the teleological views, but right action is not defined in terms of consequences.
E.g: Kant
Virtue ethics theories:
They may agree that virtue is a matter of being disposed to perform right actions but disagree that rightness of actions is always determined by actions or rules.
This is not to say that every moral rule has exceptions, but that even all the correct moral rules (something you can learn beforehand) taken together won't always tell you what the right/virtuous action to perform would be, in a given situation.
Knowing the right thing to do is itself a skill or virtue, knownness 'practical wisdom' or 'prudence' <- traditional translation of Aristotle's term 'sophrysome'.
Natural Law Ethics
Aquinas etc. This approach includes elements of the others.
The fundamental concept is 'right reason'.
These four sorts of theory focus on what's called normative ethics. They provide general principles that they claim we should conform to in our behaviour. They tell us what to do, at a certain general level. But all these theories also have a metaethical aspect. They all agree on this aspect, theory all agree that there is a fact of the matter as to what we should do and equivalently that moral claims typically have a truth value. Each is either true or false.
Some theorists disagree with this meta-ethical view.
Prescriptivists, for example, leave a view according to which (P) is neither true nor false. Why? They say "X is wrong" is equivalent in meaning to "Hey, everyone, don't do X". Just as "Close the door!" is neither true nor false.
The debate between prescriptivists and our previous friends is not over what you should do, but over what the claim "you should do X" means.
His202
City-States and Republics in Renaissance Italy.
Republics in Northern Italy taking on greater independence at the start of the 14th century.
Technically it wasn't really an empire either. The emperor was not born into that position. It was up to the rulers of the principalities to elect a ruler from among them. Up until the early 11th and 12th centuries the election process was dangerous and unstructured. During the Salian dynasty they held tight control over the empire (the investiture controversy - the emperor has tight control over the administration).
In 1356 Emperor Charles the Fourth put in a far more stringent election process which cemented a decentralisation of power. At that point they decided that there would only be 7 electors. So the chaotic tensions of the 11-12th centuries would be put to rest. These electors were quite politically influential people. In this case the power of the electors centered around the Lorraine river. So you have the archbishops entering the fray as well. What would usually happen is that they would elect hereditary rulers, just because they held greater influence of the electors. This process had nothing to do with the Pope. Once elected the emperor was consecrated by the Pope. It's like a confederation of states, choosing one amongst them to be their figurehead and leader. Obviously the holy Roman empire and its idiosyncrasies would have a large role to play in the spread of humanitas and thus reform.
They are in a balancing act between the powers of the papacy and the powers of the empire.
What we know as Italy is mashed up and divided into many city states.
Silk is highly important in the growth of Tuscany, as well as banking and trade. Trade with luxuries in the East. The emerging commercial class in Florence drives the prosperity of the region and in particular brings to prominence families. Banking was lucrative. Bankers made money out of those who had some but not enough.
There were strong civil and canon representatives in the same place. Some larger centres like Florence and Milan.
Noble families were joining together and forming mini republics. Independently and autonomous community.
Factional politics began to erupt - with those on the papal side and those on the civic side.
Florence was converted into a town who accepted all papal degrees and it was run by a tyrannical monk in the late 15th century.
Most of the humanist literature and philosophy comes out of Italy.
revival of ancient learning since the 12th century
and the formation of autonomous free thinking and fiercely patriotic
Republics in Northern Italy taking on greater independence at the start of the 14th century.
Technically it wasn't really an empire either. The emperor was not born into that position. It was up to the rulers of the principalities to elect a ruler from among them. Up until the early 11th and 12th centuries the election process was dangerous and unstructured. During the Salian dynasty they held tight control over the empire (the investiture controversy - the emperor has tight control over the administration).
In 1356 Emperor Charles the Fourth put in a far more stringent election process which cemented a decentralisation of power. At that point they decided that there would only be 7 electors. So the chaotic tensions of the 11-12th centuries would be put to rest. These electors were quite politically influential people. In this case the power of the electors centered around the Lorraine river. So you have the archbishops entering the fray as well. What would usually happen is that they would elect hereditary rulers, just because they held greater influence of the electors. This process had nothing to do with the Pope. Once elected the emperor was consecrated by the Pope. It's like a confederation of states, choosing one amongst them to be their figurehead and leader. Obviously the holy Roman empire and its idiosyncrasies would have a large role to play in the spread of humanitas and thus reform.
They are in a balancing act between the powers of the papacy and the powers of the empire.
What we know as Italy is mashed up and divided into many city states.
Silk is highly important in the growth of Tuscany, as well as banking and trade. Trade with luxuries in the East. The emerging commercial class in Florence drives the prosperity of the region and in particular brings to prominence families. Banking was lucrative. Bankers made money out of those who had some but not enough.
There were strong civil and canon representatives in the same place. Some larger centres like Florence and Milan.
Noble families were joining together and forming mini republics. Independently and autonomous community.
Factional politics began to erupt - with those on the papal side and those on the civic side.
Florence was converted into a town who accepted all papal degrees and it was run by a tyrannical monk in the late 15th century.
Most of the humanist literature and philosophy comes out of Italy.
revival of ancient learning since the 12th century
and the formation of autonomous free thinking and fiercely patriotic
Milton
Knowledge is a major theme in paradise lost.
Milton despised the monarchy. Milton defender of the puritan cause. Puritanism as a religious movement is not well served by looking at it through the modern sense of the word "puritanical". The puritans were iconoclasts.
Freedom of the will and conscience is a recurring preoccupation of Milton's. He believed in religious liberty for every one it seems except for Catholics. His anti monarchical views also share his views about liberty. He does not think the monarchy is important.
Milton uses extended similes and mirrors Homer in this way.
Milton's Satan mirrors Odysseus in its craftiness. At the same time he is Odysseus' opposite because unlike Odysseus he will never return home - and despite moments of pining he doesn't not desire to (home being heaven.)
Satan is like Achilles in his rage, his pride, his sense of injustice and of being wronged. Like Achilles Satan is proud and has a desire for revenge. Just as Achilles wants to make the women and children of Troy weep over the deaths of their loved ones, Satan wants to make heaven weep over the fall of mankind.
Satan is like Anaeus from Virgil's Aneid just as Aneus founded a new Troy from the remnants of the fallen Troy so does Satan forge hell in the fallen from Heaven.
Satan uses cunning in disguising himself as the form of a serpent and entering Eden in bringing about Eve's and Adam's downfall. Just as Achilles listens to the men of Troy to find out how to infiltrate Troy so does Satan listen to Eve to find out how to infiltrate her conscience.
Milton is purifying the epic and in doing so is setting himself above the great epic poets of antiquity. He shows that the pagan gods from the classical epics are in fact fallen angels.
The basic plot of Paradise lost is: Man's fall through consumption of the fruit which comes after Satan's fall after the angels fall in heaven after a great battle.
The poem describes as well the way in which human kind will be saved and suggests some of the reasons why man, and not the fallen angels, will be given a second chance. Milton argues and describes the sexual intercourse Adam and Eve enjoyed befall the fall. Concupiscence is the first vice that Adam and Eve fall into.
Adam's quest for knowledge raises some concerns in Raphael the angel. Raphael is worried where this pursuit of knowledge is going to lead Adam (a psychological explanation that Milton offers and represents as the fall). Eve's curiosity and pride are factors in the fall. Eve lacks prudence and coupled with her curiosity this is what the serpent appeals to.
Satan is aware it seems of a plan that God has to create creatures in his image.
The Odyssey and the Iliad and Paradise Lost all begin by evoking the muse. The heavenly muse is evoked as distinct from one of the nine muses from antiquity. He is evoking the spirit of creation. The upright heart and pure and in doing so he contrasts himself with the pagan poets.
Why has Satan fallen? He wanted to equal the most high. As God is perfect goodness he is going to become perfect hate. He will never change his will his will is fixed. There is a great dynamic interaction between fate and human freedom.
Milton represents Satan as both having a fixed will, as he is condemned to eternal flames, but he also chooses to be there.
Satan calls God a tyrant. He is saying "I could know bow and soothe for grace but that would be worse than the suffering I am feeling now".
Milton despised the monarchy. Milton defender of the puritan cause. Puritanism as a religious movement is not well served by looking at it through the modern sense of the word "puritanical". The puritans were iconoclasts.
Freedom of the will and conscience is a recurring preoccupation of Milton's. He believed in religious liberty for every one it seems except for Catholics. His anti monarchical views also share his views about liberty. He does not think the monarchy is important.
Milton uses extended similes and mirrors Homer in this way.
Milton's Satan mirrors Odysseus in its craftiness. At the same time he is Odysseus' opposite because unlike Odysseus he will never return home - and despite moments of pining he doesn't not desire to (home being heaven.)
Satan is like Achilles in his rage, his pride, his sense of injustice and of being wronged. Like Achilles Satan is proud and has a desire for revenge. Just as Achilles wants to make the women and children of Troy weep over the deaths of their loved ones, Satan wants to make heaven weep over the fall of mankind.
Satan is like Anaeus from Virgil's Aneid just as Aneus founded a new Troy from the remnants of the fallen Troy so does Satan forge hell in the fallen from Heaven.
Satan uses cunning in disguising himself as the form of a serpent and entering Eden in bringing about Eve's and Adam's downfall. Just as Achilles listens to the men of Troy to find out how to infiltrate Troy so does Satan listen to Eve to find out how to infiltrate her conscience.
Milton is purifying the epic and in doing so is setting himself above the great epic poets of antiquity. He shows that the pagan gods from the classical epics are in fact fallen angels.
The basic plot of Paradise lost is: Man's fall through consumption of the fruit which comes after Satan's fall after the angels fall in heaven after a great battle.
The poem describes as well the way in which human kind will be saved and suggests some of the reasons why man, and not the fallen angels, will be given a second chance. Milton argues and describes the sexual intercourse Adam and Eve enjoyed befall the fall. Concupiscence is the first vice that Adam and Eve fall into.
Adam's quest for knowledge raises some concerns in Raphael the angel. Raphael is worried where this pursuit of knowledge is going to lead Adam (a psychological explanation that Milton offers and represents as the fall). Eve's curiosity and pride are factors in the fall. Eve lacks prudence and coupled with her curiosity this is what the serpent appeals to.
Satan is aware it seems of a plan that God has to create creatures in his image.
The Odyssey and the Iliad and Paradise Lost all begin by evoking the muse. The heavenly muse is evoked as distinct from one of the nine muses from antiquity. He is evoking the spirit of creation. The upright heart and pure and in doing so he contrasts himself with the pagan poets.
Why has Satan fallen? He wanted to equal the most high. As God is perfect goodness he is going to become perfect hate. He will never change his will his will is fixed. There is a great dynamic interaction between fate and human freedom.
Milton represents Satan as both having a fixed will, as he is condemned to eternal flames, but he also chooses to be there.
Satan calls God a tyrant. He is saying "I could know bow and soothe for grace but that would be worse than the suffering I am feeling now".
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Moral Philosophy/Philosophical Ethics
The philosophical discipline taking morality or ethics as its bitch:
I.e deals with e.g (good & bad
(right & wrong
(virtue & vice
(justice & injustice
Distinction between things that are good as means and good as an end. The latter are in themselves good. The former are good only insofar as they lead to the latter. E.g medicine is good only as a means to health, prolongs life. There can be disagreement as to whether, e.g education, knowledge is good in itself.
Flourishing of life is good. There is also disagreement as to whether there is one ultimate good to which all other goods mere means.
Hedonism - pleasure is the ultimate good
Aristotle - eudomonia is the ultimate good. Human flourishing
Right and Wrong
Applies primarily to human acts e.g makes sense to say that my keeping my promise with you was the right thing to do. Doesn't really make grammatical sense to speech of pleasure or knowledge etc. as right or wrong they are good or bad.
Being right or wrong is a property that applies to human acts. While being good or bad is also a property but one applying find to phenomena that may or may not be present in a situation. And if one
I.e deals with e.g (good & bad
(right & wrong
(virtue & vice
(justice & injustice
Distinction between things that are good as means and good as an end. The latter are in themselves good. The former are good only insofar as they lead to the latter. E.g medicine is good only as a means to health, prolongs life. There can be disagreement as to whether, e.g education, knowledge is good in itself.
Flourishing of life is good. There is also disagreement as to whether there is one ultimate good to which all other goods mere means.
Hedonism - pleasure is the ultimate good
Aristotle - eudomonia is the ultimate good. Human flourishing
Right and Wrong
Applies primarily to human acts e.g makes sense to say that my keeping my promise with you was the right thing to do. Doesn't really make grammatical sense to speech of pleasure or knowledge etc. as right or wrong they are good or bad.
Being right or wrong is a property that applies to human acts. While being good or bad is also a property but one applying find to phenomena that may or may not be present in a situation. And if one
A history of Early Modern Times
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
"To develop an understanding of Western culture in the early modern era"
"To analyse the impact of faith and division in Western society"
"To discuss the elements of the clash between science and religion" (refers mainly to the natural philosophy pursued by 16th, 17th and early 18th century philosophers.
Renaissance, Reformation and Revolution: A History of Early Modern Times
This is a period which is difficult to pin down in dates.
Roughly between the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 18th century. Our starting date is 1350. Dante is both a medieval figure and a renaissance figure. It's in Dante's generation and the generation after him that we can detect a new mindset in the writers. Dante talked about the rebirth of the classical arts of antiquity. By reintroducing ideas, concepts and methods used by ancient writers.
Petrarch (1304-1374)
"Rinascita" Rebirth. Petrarch's word.
Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574)
Petrarch saw human feelings, a sense of knowledge and justice in Cicero's writing. He saw humanitas. (Humanity) Cicero writes about controlling human emotions. And also the duty of man. He sought to cultivate a productive society by outlining how one should live. So, humanitas, also means a duty to one's society as well as the controlling and understanding of emotions. This definition here is based largely on the reformation and renaissance thought.
Knowledge was a virtue of humanity. Knowledge would set you free.
Basically it's like they are trying to advance themselves as far as possible.
Humanists started to criticise and debate with dominicans. They despised scholastic theologians and the medieval writers. He believed that a darkness existed in Europe since the fall of Rome.
Jules Michelet (1798-1874) Cited Petrarchs works and respun for a branding of the whole period. "Histoire de France" (1833-1867) He applied the term Renaissance (c.1855)
Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) wrote "The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy" (1860) Connects the term civilization (civilising the man) with Renaissance. So Burckhardt took Michelet's framework of the renaissance a little bit further and cast it as a clear progression of humanity. Burckhardt gave what Michelet started a greater public profile and greater significance.
It's no coincidence that these works came about at this time. This is the period when historians (and history became a professional practice) are inspired by such writers as Von Ranke and Thomas Carlyle and they are convinced that there is a history for everything.
Here we can make a very strong historiographical argument that has already been made. That argument, is one of continuity. The Renaissance itself is not NEW.
So we are looking at the beginning of the middle of the 14th century as a critical point of a new change of thought.
"The scientific revolution, the beginnings of englightment, were the back-end of the renaissance"
"To develop an understanding of Western culture in the early modern era"
"To analyse the impact of faith and division in Western society"
"To discuss the elements of the clash between science and religion" (refers mainly to the natural philosophy pursued by 16th, 17th and early 18th century philosophers.
Renaissance, Reformation and Revolution: A History of Early Modern Times
This is a period which is difficult to pin down in dates.
Roughly between the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 18th century. Our starting date is 1350. Dante is both a medieval figure and a renaissance figure. It's in Dante's generation and the generation after him that we can detect a new mindset in the writers. Dante talked about the rebirth of the classical arts of antiquity. By reintroducing ideas, concepts and methods used by ancient writers.
Petrarch (1304-1374)
"Rinascita" Rebirth. Petrarch's word.
Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574)
Petrarch saw human feelings, a sense of knowledge and justice in Cicero's writing. He saw humanitas. (Humanity) Cicero writes about controlling human emotions. And also the duty of man. He sought to cultivate a productive society by outlining how one should live. So, humanitas, also means a duty to one's society as well as the controlling and understanding of emotions. This definition here is based largely on the reformation and renaissance thought.
Knowledge was a virtue of humanity. Knowledge would set you free.
Basically it's like they are trying to advance themselves as far as possible.
Humanists started to criticise and debate with dominicans. They despised scholastic theologians and the medieval writers. He believed that a darkness existed in Europe since the fall of Rome.
Jules Michelet (1798-1874) Cited Petrarchs works and respun for a branding of the whole period. "Histoire de France" (1833-1867) He applied the term Renaissance (c.1855)
Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) wrote "The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy" (1860) Connects the term civilization (civilising the man) with Renaissance. So Burckhardt took Michelet's framework of the renaissance a little bit further and cast it as a clear progression of humanity. Burckhardt gave what Michelet started a greater public profile and greater significance.
It's no coincidence that these works came about at this time. This is the period when historians (and history became a professional practice) are inspired by such writers as Von Ranke and Thomas Carlyle and they are convinced that there is a history for everything.
Here we can make a very strong historiographical argument that has already been made. That argument, is one of continuity. The Renaissance itself is not NEW.
So we are looking at the beginning of the middle of the 14th century as a critical point of a new change of thought.
"The scientific revolution, the beginnings of englightment, were the back-end of the renaissance"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
