Idealism 2.1. Idealistic Metaphysics: The person with an Idealistic worldview believes that reality is basically spirit, rather than matter. For the Idealist, the idea is more real than the thing, since the thing only reflects or represents the idea. The world of spirit or idea (i.e., the immaterial world) is static and absolute. Socrates and Plato are perhaps the best known ancient representatives of this view. See Platos parable of the Cave for his idea of what reality is. Immanuel Kant is a modern Idealist. See the commentary on Kants Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. 2.2. Idealistic Epistemology: Since reality is spirit, Idealists believe that knowledge results from the mind grasping reality. Since the mind and the ideas that it knows are immaterial, the process of knowing is entirely abstract. Right reason is thus a primary concern for the Idealist. 2.3. Idealistic Axiology: 2.3.1. Idealistic Ethics: For the Idealist, goodness is found in the ideal, that is, in perfection. It is found on the immaterial level, that is, in the perfect concept, or notion, or idea, of something. Thus, perfect goodness is never to be found in the material world. Evil, for the Idealist, consists of the absence or distortion of the ideal. It is a breaking of the eternal law. Since ideals can never change (because they are static and absolute), moral imperatives concerning them do not admit of exceptions. That is, these imperatives are stated in terms of always or never. For example: Always tell the truth or (put negatively) Never tell a lie. Since truth is the knowledge of ideal reality and a lie is a distortion of that reality, truth must always be told and lying can never be justified. 2.3.1.1 The Ethical Theory of Emmanual Kant: 2.3.2. Idealistic Aesthetics: When an Idealist wants to visually or audibly represent an idea, his or her approach will be to get that idea across to the viewer or listener. The Idealist is not overly interested in specific or concrete instances, since reality is in the general idea of something, and less in a particular representation of that idea. An Idealist painter, for example, will therefore try to paint the perfect person - to bring out the persons inner identity. If the person in the painting had cut herself or himself and had a scar on her/his face, the painter would leave the scar out (or at least idealize it) because the scar is an imperfection -something that should not ideally be there. 3. Naturalism 3.1. Naturalistic Metaphysics: The person with a Naturalistic worldview believes that reality is basically matter, rather than spirit. For the Naturalist, the thing is more real than the idea. Whatever exists is therefore primarily material, natural, and physical. Whatever exists exists in some quantity and therefore can be measured (as Edward Lee Thorndike, one of the first experimental psychologists, said). It exists independently of any mind and is governed by the laws of nature, primary among which are the laws of cause and effect. The universe, according to the Naturalist, is one of natural design and order. Aristotle was an early representative of this view. B.F. Skinner, the behavioral psychologist, is a more current representative. 3.2. Naturalistic Epistemology: For the Naturalist, knowledge is gained through the senses. Reality exists in the material object, not in the immaterial mind. Therefore, it is the mind that must conform to the object - not the object to the mind. This conformity of the mind to the object is done thru the senses and is an entirely physical process. Science is thus a primary concern for the Naturalist. 3.3. Naturalistic Axiology: 3.3.1. Naturalistic Ethics: For the Naturalist, the baseline of value is that which is natural - that is, that which is in conformity with nature. Nature is good. One need not look beyond nature to some immaterial ideal for a standard of right and wrong. Rather, goodness will be found by living in harmony with nature. Evil, for the Naturalist, is a departure from this natural norm either in the direction of excess or defect (i.e., having, or doing, too much or too little of something which is naturally good). It is a breaking of the natural law. 3.3.2. Naturalistic Aesthetics: In seeking good appearance, or sound, the Naturalist will look to nature as the standard. Thus, for the Naturalist, art should imitate nature. If a Naturalist is painting a portrait of a person who has a facial scar, the Naturalist will paint the scar because reality includes imperfection. 4. Pragmatism 4.1. Pragmatic Metaphysics: For the Pragmatist, reality is not so easily pinpointed as it is for the Idealist and Naturalist. Reality is neither an idea nor is it matter. It would be a mistake to view reality as either a spiritual or physical something. Rather, the Pragmatist believes that reality is a process. It is a dynamic coming-to-be rather than a static fixed being. It is change, happening, activity, interaction...in short, it is experience. Reality is more like a verb than a noun. It is flux and flow where the concentration is not so much on the things as on the relationship between the things. Since everything changes nothing can have any permanent essence or identity. An ancient Greek Pragmatist used to say in this regard: You cant step in the same river twice. For the Pragmatist, everything is essentially relative. The only constant is change. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes! The Americans William James and John Dewey are representatives of this view. 4.2. Pragmatic Epistemology: Given the Pragmatic understanding of reality, the question of knowledge becomes somewhat problematic. The mind can certainly not be depended on for knowledge. Even the senses cannot be totally trusted, since things may not be...or continue to be...what they seem to be. The only sure route to knowledge in a world of constant change is to test things and see if they work. There is no fixed and permanent truth. Rather, truth happens to a thing. If it is found to work (i.e., to be useful in achieving some end), then it becomes true. When it no longer works toward achieving an end, then it ceases to be true. This testing of knowledge is a public test. That is, it is open to anyones inspection. It must be able to be replicated. If it works for you, it must be able to work for me. Thus, truth is the result of a consensual process. It is an agreement reached by the group (or at least by a majority of the group). It is also tentative, because it is only held as long as it proves to be true (i.e., as long as it is found to be useful). Finally, truth is relative. It is relative to the end or goal to which it is thought to be useful, and it is relative in the sense that it is not *always* true, but is true only so long as it is useful. Societys judgment is thus a primary concern for the Pragmatist. 4.3. Pragmatic Axiology: 4.3.1. Pragmatic Ethics: Much that was said in the discussion above about pragmatic epistemology could also be said here about pragmatic ethics. The Pragmatist believes that value claims must be tested and proven in practice. In the Pragmatists view, things are value-neutral in themselves. There is nothing that is always good, nor is there anything that is always bad. The value of anything is determined solely in terms of its usefulness in achieving some end. In answer to the question, Is that good?, a Pragmatist would probably reply, Good for what? Thus, the Pragmatist believes that the end justifies the means. That is, if something is useful for achieving some end or goal, then it becomes good. To state this another way, a means gets its positive value from being an efficient route to the achievement of an end. Thus, a means is not valued for its own sake, but only in relation to its usefulness for achieving some end. Results or consequences are the ultimate measure of goodness for a Pragmatist, since the usefulness of a means to an end can only be judged after the fact by its effect on the end. Thus, for the Pragmatist, there can be no assurance that something is good...until it is tried. Even then, it is only held tentatively as good since a thing is good only as long as it continues to work. Evil, for the Pragmatist, is that which is counterproductive. It is (usually) a breaking of civil or criminal law. There can be a dispute about which means are more effective for achieving an end. Indeed, there can be a dispute about which ends should, in fact, be pursued. Thus, the Pragmatist looks for guidance from the group. The reasons for this are metaphysical: reality is experience, but it is the experience of the whole. For the Pragmatist, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This means that the whole is more valuable than any of its parts. In the field of value judgments, the groups wisdom is more highly esteemed than the wisdom of any individual within the group. 4.3.2. Pragmatic Aesthetics: In keeping with the Pragmatist value theory, there is no appearance or sound which is, in itself, good or bad. Appearances or sounds take their value from their relationships to group goals. Thus, in the realm of art, values will be determined by the majority view and in relation to the social benefit of the art in question. 5. Existentialism 5.1. Existentialistic Metaphysics: The Existentialist joins with the Pragmatist in rejecting the belief that reality is fixed and static. But instead of believing that reality is a process whose meaning is defined primarily by the controlling group, the Existentialist believes that reality must be defined by each autonomous individual. The Existentialist finds both himself/herself and the world entirely without meaning. In fact, the Existentialist would say that the world is literally absurd. Any meaning that gets into the world must be put in it by the individual, and that meaning or value will hold only for that individual. Thus each persons world, as well as each persons own identity, is the product of that persons own choice. Thus, each person can be defined as the sum of that persons choices. A persons world is what that person chooses it to be. Thus, reality is different for each individual. We each live in our own world and we are who we choose to be...what we believe is who we are. Soren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre are frequently associated with this view. 5.2. Existentialistic Epistemology: For the Existentialist, knowledge is an individual matter. An individual must choose his/her own truth. There is no escaping this choice...not to decide *is* to decide (that is, we have *decided* not to decide). The individual does not discover ideas, but rather creates them. This results in multiple truths...even contradictory truths. The Idealist or Naturalist, and even the Pragmatist, would call this crazy. But since, in the Existentialist view, each person is the designer of her/his own scheme of truth there is no problem if your view of truth does not agree with mine. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. We each must *choose* our own truth. We may, in fact, agree on truth, but this will be because we have independently arrived at it. However, it is well to remember that an Existentialist is not *necessarily* disagreeable. For example, an Idealist, a Naturalist, a Pragmatist, and an Existentialist may all agree upon a particular truth, but for different reasons: the Idealist because it conforms to some ideal, the Naturalist because it is natural, the Pragmatist because it is socially useful, and the Existentialist because he/she has decided (through whatever personal process) that it is true. Individual choice and responsibility are thus primary concerns for the Existentialist. 5.3. Existentialistic Axiology: 5.3.1. Existentialistic Ethics: As with knowledge, the individual must create his/her own value. There is no escape from the necessity of creating values. Just as the world is defined by the choices regarding knowledge that an individual makes, so the individual must express her/his own preferences. In making choices, or defining values, the individual becomes responsible for those choices. The individual cannot deflect praise or blame for those choices onto others. If the choices were freely made, then responsibility for them must be accepted. While heredity, environment, and society might influence what choices an individual makes, there is a zone of freedom within each individual that cannot be conditioned or predetermined. An Existentialist is not necessarily a non-conformist, but if an Existentialist conforms to the values of a group it will be because that person has freely chosen to do so - not because they have been pressured to do so by the group. Evil, for the Existentialist, is being false to self. It is a breaking of ones personal law. 5.3.2. Existentialistic Aesthetics: The question of what is good in appearance or sound will be determined, in Existentialist terms, solely by each individual. Value, like reality and truth, must be created by the person. It is not *found* preexisting, or determined by group concensus. Thus, how value is portrayed will be a matter of individual preference. What is good art for you may be bad art for me, and vice versa.
Posted on: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:48:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015