I am surprised that no one here has anything to say about this dispute which
involves at least 5 academics who have published books that relate to it.
Although, I'd be even more surprised if any contemporary academic ever wrote a
book that attracted my attention beyond the first page, as they are far more
concerned with the canon of philosophy than with the those of music, painting,
poetry etc.
Is it possible to write about aesthetics without reference to a specific canon
of aesthetic objects ?
I don't think there's any point to it -- unless you're addressing how anyone
might feel about anything. (and maybe that's why William is mostly interested
in neuroscience, which is as fascinating as anything else in biology, but of
no special interest to me)
This is why I find Randian aesthetics more interesting -- because at least
they will stand up for what they think has the greatest value -- rather than
passively letting it be defined by the marketplace in cooperation with the art
museum. (although, unfortunately, I usually disagree with their choices)
************
>Chris is right to question this. When I read it, I felt the announcement was
a typical for-members-of-the-club-only invitation from philosophy academia.
"Oh, well, if you don't already know what the minimalist conception is, you're
of no interest to us."
____________________________________________________________
Find the perfect photo - click now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc0u72lS9Ae9GTWUVUkMMze0FB
X1M7R0z6T6Z8i3QuCnKOsYU/
