Philosophy Courses for Spring Quarter:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and Introduction to Philosophy.  Contact Dr. Nordenhaug or Dr. Cooksey in the Department of Languages, Literature, and Dramatic Arts for more information.

Are we merely on a higher level than animals because we define the levels? We are the quantitators; we determine the context and criteria which defines us as "higher." Do whales seek a higher meaning, and if not is it because they are less advanced than humans, or merely because they are better at being whales than we are at being human? Are they capable of being self-identical in a way that we are not? For us, the ego breaks into two parts; the external and the internal. We objectify what is "out there" so that we can internalize it and comprehend it "in here." There are two selves; the "I" that is the word and the "I" that is the self to which we refer. In the Cartesian "Cogito Ergo Sum" there is the "I" that is thinking and the "I" that is being. Self awareness must be awareness of something. Why is it that we assume a higher level of consciousness because we ask questions that we can't answer?

In the 20th century, people have begun to ask if animals have language and are aware of meaning. Is this because we are trying to find another perspective on the universe? We seem bored with other humans opinions, so why do we care about the perspectives of animals? Is this newfound interest because we are aware of the extinction of animal species due to the works of man?

What gives the "natural" world its value? Our environment distances us from the natural world, and it seems that we are coming to believe that we can create our own environments totally removed from nature. If so, why are we concerned that we may be destroying the natural environment? If we believe that animals have some value, then it must be inherent in the animals themselves, and not merely due to a specific animals usefulness. Do we really give animals a value outside of our use for them? Do we believe in an inherent value in life at all?

Perhaps the search for consciousness in animals is an attempt to give them a value outside of ourselves. But we seem to be searching for a value in animals that are "cute", and don't compete with us. We decide which animals should be saved and which should we should not be concerned with. Would we ever see a commercial to "save the cockroaches?" What criteria do we use to determine which species have value and which do not?

Is our communication with each other distancing us from "real" social contact? Can you have real social contact through the communications supernetwork that has developed?

One of the things that seems to be necessary for communication to occur is that the people who are involved in the exchange know one another. There is no risk in talking to someone you can't see and don't know in a chat room, the words lose context in relation to the people talking. You are no longer connected to your words, and can say whatever you choose. You will not be held responsible for what you say. How can we establish human trust under these conditions, which is also necessary for communication?
 

Has philosophical Aesthetics died in the 20^th century? Old ideas of beauty referred to some supernatural or divine referent; the common belief was that beauty was transcendent of human imperfection. The critics all agreed on their terms-they knew what they meant when they spoke to each other about beauty and art.

Also, for many artists in the past there was a psychological dependency on art. Today it seems that art has become more of a profession; that the value art has for the artist is coloured by its monetary worth. There does not seem to be as much emphasis on the inherent value of art. Also, with the focus on the return value, popular opinion serves to influence what the art is in a way that it did not before. An artist must have something original to say, rather than just expressing something because it will be popular.

 What accounts for exceptional works of art? Rules and structure? Contrast? Balance? It seems that over time our conceptions of what contribute to the beauty of art have altered. It used to be, for example, that rigid rules in poetry were considered important, but today such structure, for the most part, seems monotonous and boring to us. Later we begin to find beauty in juxtapositions. Shakespeare varies his meter and rhyme.

When new forms were evolving, they were considered radical.

What do we look for today in art? Works today seem to need some political angle to be popular. If we look at a work of art and are told that it was created by someone from a stable, wealthy family, would we regard it differently than if we were told that it was created by someone from a broken home in a ghetto? Should it matter where the work came from? Is this knowledge simply another dimension to the art that is added? And if so, then what is the starting point that makes it art?

To what degree is beauty common or rare, and how does that affect how we value it? We seem to value more those things which are rare Nietzsche said that we need to recognize mediocrity as mediocre and concentrate on the rarity in life.

The typical post-modern idea is that there are no more masterpieces. This fits with our trend toward homogeneity; there must be beauty in everything. There is a trend to find beauty in ordinary things, focusing on more mundane objects. We think of art as something subjective and less connected to anything real or eternal to us. But if beauty is not connected to anything real, how long will people care about it?

The aesthetic experience is rare. For example, when you see a sunrise that is particularly beautiful, one that you remember as having made an impression on you, you are affected in a certain way by the experience. If you were having that experience all the time you would be considered disturbed. The artist seems to have a heightened sensitivity to this experience; it is expressed through music, painting, writing, etc. as an outlet.

Submissions can be dropped off at any time in The Thought Box, located in the Writing Center in Gamble Hall, or can be given to Dr. Erik Nordenhaug in the Department of Languages, Literature, and Dramatic Arts.

Submissions to The Philosopher's Stone may address any philosophical issue, compare philosophical ideas, propose new topics for discussion, or address any previous newsletter article or topic. Please limit works to 500 words, as we have limited space.
 

Student President: Tiffanie L.C. Rogers, 1.888.964.9543

Fun Page

This Cartoon used with permission from Randy Glasbergen.  Visit Randy's website!
 

10. Philoterminusphobia: (Philo/ terminus/ phobia) Fear that there really is an answer to the Philosophical Questions.
 

Variation 1: The answer is 42.

Variation 2: You will be expected to find the answer.

9. Platodefinusphobia: (Plato/ defineus/ phobia) Fear that we really are just "featherless bipeds."
 

8. Theomatthauphobia: (Theo/ matthau/ phobia) Fear that God is an acronym for "Grumpy Old Deity."
 

7. Leibnizdescriptusphobia: (Leibniz/ descriptus/ phobia) Fear that this really is the best of all possible worlds.
 

6. Cartesiometaphysicusphobia: (Cartesio/ metaphysicus/ phobia) Fear of going to sleep, waking up in a vat, and facing an Evil Genius that is a manifestation of Shoepenhaur's Will and/or fear of waking up to find out that one is really asleep.
 

5. Affirmationoneizscheophobia: (Affirmationo/ neizstcheo/ phobia) Fear of Eternal Recurrance.
 

4. Benthemussolopsisticusphobia: (Benthemus/ solopsisticus/ phobia) Fear that the Hedenic Calculus really is the best way to make decisions.
 

3. Sophistushegesiasphobia: (Sophistus/ hegesias/ phobia) Fear of rhetoricians.
 

2. Logicusharmoniusinteruptusphobia: (logicus/ harmonious/ interuptus/ phobia) Fear of proving that P ~P and inadvertently ending the universe.
 

1. Impendinginfernophobia: (Impending/ inferno/ phobia) Fear that God is. . . Kantian.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Just for Fun. . .

In dialogue form, relate a conversation that Schrödinger's cat might have with Thomas Hobbes.