the problem of evil (god and the world)

Outline the logical problem of evil as a deductive argument, numbering the premises.

The logical problem of evil argument states that the mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God and his traditional attributes, such as benevolence. It is argued as follows: God is perfectly good, therefore he has the desire to eliminate evil, evil still exists in the world, therefore God cannot exist. The conclusion is logically supported by the premises, therefore supporting the argument against the existence of God.

Explain and illustrate one challenge to the logical problem of evil.

In the defence of the existence of God, it could be argued that some evil is necessary for the greater good. For example, love wouldn't be the same without our capacity to feel sadness when we lose someone we love. The proverb ''Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all' explains this view - we can't fully appreciate what is good unless we have experienced something bad or evil to contrast with it. Therefore, some evil is necessary to make the world a better place, which still supports the fact that God is good, as if he were to eliminate all evil then he would also be eliminating a lot of good, thus the existence of God is logically compatible with the existence of God.

Compare and contrast the evidential and logical problems of evil.

The evidential problem of evil claims that evil is unfairly distributed and even if evil is necessary for certain goods, is the amount there actually is necessary for this? For example, many children die from terrible diseases, or are brutally treated - it is clear that a benevolent, omnipotent God would want to eradicate this kind of evil. This argument is understood inductively (the conclusion is supported by the premise): the way that evil exists is evidence for thinking that God doesn't exist

The logical problem of evil agrees that God cannot exist, but understands this in deductive terms (the conclusion is logically supported by the premises) - it argues that God is perfectly good, therefore he has the desire to eliminate evil, evil still exists in the world, therefore God cannot exist.

Explain and illustrate the difference between moral evil and natural evil.

Moral evil refers to the morally wrong actions or motives of human beings, for example, Hitler was morally evil for trying to eradicate the Jews; ethnic cleansing is a morally evil policy. Whereas natural evil refers to suffering caused by natural events and processes, for example, suffering caused by earthquakes or tsunamis.

Outline the free will defence against the problem of evil.

The free will argument defends the view that evil can exist in the world, even if God exists. It is believed that, because God is good, he gave us free will (because free will is good), however, sometimes we don't use our free will for the good i.e. we are morally imperfect, which can bring about evil. However, God can't make people with free will act good, because having free will and sometimes bringing about evil is thought to be better than having no free will at all. Therefore, evil exists in the world as a result of our own free will.

A problem with this argument is that it only explain moral evil. However, an explanation of this could be that, the other kind of evil, 'natural evil', is a result of an evil supernatural being, for example, the Devil. It is believed that the Devil was originally an angel created by God and that it was, like us, given free will, but then rebelled against God and has since tried to bring evil into the world. Therefore, this explain moral evil and natural evil; it is the effect of the Devil's actions.

Explain Augustine's theory of the Fall.

Augustine argued that natural evil is a result of the moral evil of human beings - to support his argument he refers to the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, which then led to 'The Fall'. This meant a change in nature, human beings and the relationship between them. God told Eve that she would give birth in sorrow and pain as her punishment, and Adam was cursed by being made to work to earn his livelihood. Therefore, Augustine argues that this supports the view that all evil, moral and natural, was originally caused by human abuse of free will, thus defending the view that evil can exist in the world, even if God exists.

However, it is now understood that the Fall wasn't an event in actual human history - it could be possible that animals were suffering long before humans existed, therefore this isn't proof that humans are the cause of natural evil. Furthermore, Christians understand the Fall as a myth about the relationship between humans, nature and God, but it isn't taken literally, therefore, human abuse of free will isn't the cause for all natural evil.

Furthermore, it could be argued that even if the story were true, the consequences seem incredibly unfair. Why should every animal and human born after Adam and Eve have to suffer for a decision made many, many years ago? It could be argued that a good God would not hold every single person accountable, but would rather, if anything, punish those directly responsible. Therefore, this argument is flawed as it could be argued that God would be considered unethical if it were true, which defeats the purpose of him being a good God.

Outline and illustrate the soul-making theodicy.

The soul-making theodicy argues that evil is necessary for us to become good people, and for us to grow morally and spiritually. It claims that virtues are impossible unless there is evil in the world to respond to or correct, for example, we can't know forgiveness unless people treat us wrongly and we can't know courage unless there is real danger. Also, because God is good, he wants us to become good ourselves, thus justifying why evil exists whilst God also exists. This theory can be understood through viewing the world - which has evil in it - to be a place of 'soul-making', thus supporting the existence of evil being compatible with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God.

However, it could be argued that, if God is omnipotent, why didn't he just created us to be good in the first place? Why do we have to become good? John Hick replies that the goodness gained through first-hand experience of evil/pain is far more valuable than goodness that has simply been handed to us. Therefore, this justifies that evil is necessary for us become authentically good people.

Another argument against this theodicy is that if evil is justified through the goodness we gain out of it, then this appears to justify all evil, and not all evil provides goodness. For example, there are children who have been abused and never been able to recover, there's brutal murders inflicted on innocent people, there's pre-mature deaths - all of these examples of suffering don't seem to suggest that spiritual growth will be a resulting factor. Furthermore, the distribution of evil doesn't seem to support the idea that the purpose of evil is for people to become morally good - if this were the case, then the scale of evil wouldn't be as large as it is. Therefore, not all kinds of evil can be justified with this theodicy, thus it doesn't explain why God allows all evil.

Furthermore, this argument only seems to acknowledge the suffering of beings who can grow spiritually - it could be argued that animals have souls too, and thus can grow spiritually, therefore, this theodicy ignores the suffering of animals. However, many religious traditions reject this view, thus explaining why it is ignored in the first place.

Kant: conceptual schemes

Evaluate the claim that experience is only intelligible because it presents sensation through a pre-determined conceptual scheme.

Kant's work on conceptual schemes began as an objection to empiricist theories of how we gain knowledge. Hume said that 'at first, senses let in particular ideas', but Kant criticised this as a simplification that misses the vital step of exactly how sensory impressions are interpreted into ideas or concepts. Kant said that if our purse sensory input wasn't sorted or 'categorised' in any way then our experience would be nothing more than an unintelligible buzz.

In order to explain how we sort our sensory input into an intelligible experience of a physical world, Kant presented his theory of conceptual schemes, consisting of 12 innate categories which are necessary for intelligible experience. Some examples of these categories are Causation, Substance, Unity and Necessity. Kant said that causality is a necessary category as it allows us to differentiate between the order of our experience changing, and changes in the object itself. For instance, if I walk around a house, I know that I can experience a window and then a door, but I also know that if I were to see the door before the window then this would be a change in my order of experience, rather than a change in the position of the objects themselves. In contrast, I can see a ship sailing upriver towards me. My order of experience cannot be changing in this instance, as if the ship was sailing away from me it would a different event. Therefore, I know that the ship is actually changing as my order of experiences cannot be.

Causality is a somewhat difficult concept to comprehend, as we have no way of imagining experience without causality. This is a good explanation of why our conceptual schemes are necessary for intelligible experience, as we have no way of separating our experience from the categories themselves. Kant expanded on this by saying that there are two worlds: one of pure sensory stimuli, and the other the physical world that we experience. He said that we are unable to even come close to comprehending the world of pure stimuli as our experience is so dependent on the categorisation of our conceptual schemes.

A criticism of this is that all 12 categories might not be necessary for intelligible experience. For example, our experience is of a world of physical objects interacting with each other. Maybe the only categories that we need interpret sense experience are causation and substance, as substance covers physical objects while causality explains the interactions between these objects. In essence, this objection states that Kant's conceptual schemes may be too complex.

A second objection is that if Kant's theory rests on their being a 'real' world of pure sensory stimuli which is completely beyond our comprehension then we could say that this is too much of a leap, as it seems implausible that our experience is separate from the 'real' world of pure sensory stimuli. However, modern scientific theories about the brain have identified a process called sensory gating, in which our brain filters out unnecessary stimuli. While this does not explicitly support Kant's conceptual schemes, it does suggest that our experience is different from pure sensory stimuli. Therefore, Kant's argument that our intelligible experience is completely separate from the world of purse sensory stimuli seems convincing.

the argument from design (god and the world, paper 2)

Explain and illustrate the inference from purpose to design.

The way living creatures function is highly complex as it requires huge co-ordination of lots of tiny bits, with each bit doing its job, because of this it is argued that the complexity of living creatures must have required planning. Furthermore, this planning had a purpose - to make a living creature, to make organs that enables the creature to hear, see etc. It is argued that acting on a plan that is guided by purpose is 'design'. Thus, if living creatures are designed, then by definition there must be a designer (which is an argument for the existence of God).


Explain how evolution by natural selection undermines the argument for design.

The argument for design can be explained more simply by the Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that millions of alterations take place in a creature and that the traits of a creature which help it survive are more likely to be carried on in its species through reproduction. This is because reproduction is easier and thus more likely for the creatures are best suited to their environment (i.e. the ones with advantageous traits), thus their traits will be carried on genetically. The creatures with the least advantageous traits are likely to die out faster because they are not as well-suited to their environments, thus they are less likely to survive. Therefore, rather than design, creatures are a product of coincidence that happens over a great deal of time.

This undermines the argument for design because it explains more simply why living creatures are so complex, rather than inferring existence of something we can't be certain exists. Also, it is scientific and testable, therefore, it is a better explanation.


Outline and illustrate the fine tuning argument for design.

Cosmologists explain that the conditions necessary for life to come into existence are extremely improbable, and thus cannot be explained through mere coincidence. If anything about the Big Bang were different, even slightly, then the universe itself would be entirely different - stars wouldn't exists, nor planets, nor us humans. The fact that the universe is so adjusted, so 'finely tuned', seems like a tremendous coincidence. A further explanation of this argument is that the universe was designed in a particular way that would allow life to evolve the way it has. This is an argument against Darwinism, as it claims that the way the universe and life has formed can't have just been a coincidence, due to the immense scientific intricacy that has allowed it to form the way it has.


Explain the argument from analogy.

The argument from analogy states that nature resembles human inventions (for example, a watch) in the way it displays a purpose, for example, the hearts purpose to pump blood, or the eyes purpose to see. Therefore, it is argued that nature must have a cause similar to human invention, in other words, there must have been a mind that intended to create such a design (as humans do with their inventions).

However, Hume argues against the analogy - firstly, this argument usually refers to the particular human invention of a watch, this is flawed as it could easily be argued that a watch is incomparable to living creatures. For example, watches cannot feel sensory feelings such as pain, therefore the argument that the nature is similar to human invention is invalid, meaning we can't infer a similar cause for its existence. Furthermore, the universe itself is nothing like a watch, it is obviously far more complex, therefore again, we can't infer a similar cause for its existence.  Also, Hume argues that overall this is a weak argument - our knowledge of the world is extremely unreliable, therefore it would be implausible to draw such conclusions about the world. It could be asserted that this argument is far too simplistic to explain something so vast and, for the most part, incomprehensible, therefore weakening this argument overall.


Assess the argument from analogy for the existence of God.

The argument from analogy argues for the existence of God, as it claims that nature resembles human inventions in the way is displays a purpose, therefore, like human inventions, there must have been a creator of nature.

According to Hume, this argument has a few major flaws - firstly, even it there were evidence to suggest that there is a designer of the universe, it is a huge leap to argue that this designer is God; more explanation and proof is needed, therefore it is an incomplete argument.

Furthermore, some of the attributes of God contradict the argument. Firstly, God is said to be the 'creator', however, we can argue that, in the case of humans, the designer isn't always the creator e.g. a person could design a house, but they may not build it themselves. Therefore, we can't accurately compare the creation of human inventions to the creation of the universe, flawing the argument from analogy.

Also, it could be argued that the scale of the design of something reflects the power of the designer - if this were the case, then both a watch and the universe would be infinite, which isn't the case. However, God is said to be infinite, therefore not reflecting the scale of the design, thus weakening the similarity.

It could also be argued that the quality of the design reflects the abilities of the designer - however, if the purpose of the universe was life, then this is poorly designed because natural disasters (e.g. volcanoes, tsunamis) wipe out life. Therefore, we could infer that the designer of the universe wasn't fully skilled, therefore it cannot have been God as is said not to make mistakes.

Therefore, overall, comparing the creation of human inventions to the creation of the universe as an argument for God is an inaccurate argument, as the similarities between the designer of human inventions and God being a designer are weak.

reason and experience: rationalism

Explain Descartes' argument and how this challenges Hume.

Descartes argues that we can't trust sense experience alone, as it is possible, for example, that all of our sensory experiences are being produced by an evil demon who is trying to deceive us, therefore we can't be sure of sensory experiences, meaning that it is more rational to establish everything using a priori reasoning. This challenges Hume, who argues that sense experience is the basis of knowledge, because, as Descartes states, how can we be certain that sense experience isn't deceiving us? Descartes argues that we can't. Therefore, he argues that the only thing he can be sure of is that he thinks - he can't doubt this, because even if he were to doubt, this would be a type of thinking in itself. Also, even if the evil demon were to force him to doubt his ability to think, he would still be thinking. Therefore, this is the only one thing Descartes can be sure of, and he actually reaches this conclusion using pure reasoning and rational intuition, which further supports his argument that knowledge can only be established using a priori reasoning.

Explain Descartes' argument that the mind can exist without the body.

Descartes argues that, because we can't trust sense experience alone, as a result we can doubt we have a body. He argued that this is because he only believes he has a body because of sense experience, but he can't trust his sense experience because a demon could be deceiving him. However, one thing he can know is that he can 'think' and the fact that he thinks must mean he exists, thus he knows he exists, but he doesn't know for certain that he has a body. Therefore, he concluded (through a priori intuition and demonstration), that it is possible to exist without a body.

Explain Descartes' theory of how we can know the physical world exists.

Descartes argues that, ultimately, the physical world exists because God exists - he justifies the existence of God by arguing that God is perfect by definition, which means that can't be a deceiver, therefore he exists. Thus, if God exists then there must be an external world. However, we don't know this through sense experience (which Descartes says we can't fully trust), but through a priori reasoning and demonstration.

Explain the claim that there are a number of different conceptual schemes. (rationalism?)

Some philosophers argue that we don't all have the same concepts, but rather that different people have different sets of concepts or what are called 'conceptual schemes'. The theory states, that first of all, the data comes into the senses, and then we must interpret this data by using a set of concepts. It is argued that different people apply different conceptual schemes (i.e. they would have different interpretations of data from the senses). To support this idea is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, whereby a difference in language was analysed - they realised, while working with Hopi Indians, that the way they talked about the concept of time was untranslatable to English. It was then argued that language is a reflection of how people think and of their concepts, which supports the conclusion that their very experience of time was different from ours. Therefore, the theory concludes that if people have different languages and different conceptual schemes, this means that they have a different view of the universe.


Explain Chomsky's 'poverty of stimulus' argument.

Chomsky argues that, because children learn linguistic grammar so fast and from very poor information, that it must be innate - this is because, for it to be derived from sense experience, it would require memory, induction from examples and inference to grammatical rules. He argued that children learn grammatical rules subconsciously through being able to construct and identify grammatically correct sentences. To support his theory, he states that children, firstly, can learn grammar on the basis of very few examples, secondly, that many of these examples are presented ungrammatically, as we often speak in incomplete, interrupted sentences, and lastly, that mistakes children make in terms of their grammar often go uncorrected. All of these points would make it more difficult for children to learn proper grammar, however, as Chomsky argues, children appear to learn grammar naturally, thus they can't be learning language from experience. Therefore, Chomsky argues, exposure to language triggers innate knowledge of grammar.


Explain the nativist theory of experience triggering innate ideas.

Nativists claim that the definition of an 'innate' idea is not one we know from birth (as Locke defined it), but rather, that we have innate ideas which are triggered by experience. This explains why there are ideas which children don't know precisely from birth - because they haven't yet had the experience needed to make the ideas conscious. An example of this occurs in the study of animal behaviour - some baby birds only need to hear a little bit of its species' birdsong to be able to sing it itself - this shows that with very little sense experience (hearing a little bit of the birdsong) triggered the birds innate knowledge of it, thus supporting the nativist claim. It is also backed up by Chomsky who claimed that children learn grammar far too quickly for it to have been learned through mere sense experience; thus, grammar must be innate, as nothing else would explain how children learn so quickly/naturally.

However, it is argued by some philosophers that Chomsky's theory hasn't justified an innate knowledge, but rather an innate ability. It is argued that the ability to construct and classify grammar correctly isn't a type of knowledge, because if it were, then children would have beliefs about grammar, which is not true. What seems right is that children have the ability, thus, Chomsky isn't arguing that we have innate knowledge, weakening his argument. However, it is argued that an innate ability to construct and classify grammar correctly would generate innate knowledge, but still (indirectly) supports the argument that ideas don't come from sense experience.

Explain Plato's idea of the Forms.

Plato emphasised the distinction between what is real and what is not in regards to how we gain knowledge. He argued that world around us, which we see and experience, is not the 'real' world. This is because what is real is perfect, and because the world around us is always changing, it isn't perfect, therefore it isn't real. He refers to the world around us as the 'world of appearances'; it is fake.

To contrast with his idea of an illusionary world, Plato called the real, unchanging world, the world of 'Forms'. A Form of something is what Plato referred to as essentially being the perfect version of something. For example, the Form of a chair is what would be considered the perfect chair. Whereas, in the material world (the world of appearances), a chair that we see in every day life is imperfect, because it is only a reflection of the Form of a perfect chair.

Plato believed what exists is two separate worlds (the world of Forms and the world of appearances), therefore he is a dualist. He argued that, in order to gain access to knowledge of the Forms, we can't rely on sense experience because it is is material/imperfect, thus we can't acquire knowledge this way. As a result, he argued that to gain full access to knowledge of the Forms we must use reason and intellect. However, Plato argues, we can still access some innate knowledge of the Forms as our 'soul' has experienced them in a past life, thus how reflections of them are known to us.

Compare and contrast Hume's and Plato's theories of how we acquire abstract ideas.

Hume argued that we gain 'impressions' through sense experience - this is divided into impressions of sensation, which are derived from sense experience (e.g. seeing a car) and impressions of reflection, which are derived from experience of our mind (e.g. feelings emotions). From this, Hume claimed that ideas are 'faint copies' of impressions - for example, actually hearing a song is different from thinking of the memory of that song - the latter is weaker; fainter.  Thus, we acquire ideas by copying from impressions. This is an empiricist point of view, as Hume is arguing that we acquire ideas through sense experience.

Plato claimed that we know ideas innately because of our souls experience of the world of Forms in the past life. He believed that we know the abstract idea of 'equality' because we knew of the form of equality before birth. Therefore, Plato denies Hume's argument that ideas are obtained from sense experience, and that ideas are known from/before birth.

Compare and contrast the ways in which sense experience and abstract reasoning might give us knowledge. 

Plato argues that we can use sense experience of beautiful objects to compare what it is exactly is that all of these objects share, and from this we can use abstract reasoning to consider what the Form of beauty truly is. For example, the concept of beauty: through sense experience we can recognise what is beautiful, but it isn't immediately apparent what attributes these objects share. Plato thought we could use abstract reasoning to gain knowledge of the Forms by using our sense experience as a base for further exploration of what the concept truly is in the 'real' reality.

Descartes' thought experiment in 'Meditations' is an example of gaining knowledge through abstract reasoning alone, with no help from sense experience. He supposed that it is a possibility that our sense experience is completely false and misleading (his explanation was that it could be supplied to us by an evil demon). With this in mind, he used pure a priori reasoning to reach the conclusion that the mind exists, and from this he ultimately concludes that the world around us must actually exist as God would not deceive us. Therefore, Descartes' theory is slightly different from Plato's as it disregards sense experience as a factor in gaining knowledge about the world.

At their core, the aforementioned theories state that we can have a priori knowledge about the world beyond the analytic. This is denied by empiricism, and Hume and Locke's theory of how we gain knowledge places a much bigger emphasis on the role of sense experience. Using beauty as an example again, they state that we come to know the concept of beauty through abstracting from our experience of objects that we believe are beautiful to come to know the complex concept of beauty. This differs from Plato's theory as Hume and Locke believe that complex concepts, like beauty, are made up of combinations of simple concepts. Plato thought that there is a Form of beauty which exists independently of all the things that are beautiful.

Explain Nietzsche's criticism of Plato.

Nietzsche primarily criticises Plato, who says that his a priori reasoning reveals the truth. Nietzsche said that at the foundation of reason is a desire to see the world in a particular way. Plato wishes to see good and bad as opposites, with our 'lowly, deceptive' world secondary to the perfect world of certainty and purity. These value judgements guide the way a philosopher reasons about the world. Nietzsche said that in order to establish truth about the world we must pay attention to both our experience and our individual value judgements, in particular the way they influence how they think philosophically. Otherwise, our theories will simply be fantasies expressing a wish that is grounded within our own preferences, and is thus not truth.

Explain Ayer's verification principle.

Ayer was an empiricist who developed Hume's empiricist theory of knowledge. He developed the theory of 'logical positivism' which built on the traditional empiricist rejection of the possibility of synthetic (knowledge about the way the world is), a priori (doesn't require sense experience to be known) knowledge.

Ayer argued that a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable, otherwise it is non-sensical. By empirically verifiable, he means whether there is empirical evidence that goes towards establishing whether a statement is true or false; is it verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. For example, the statement 'the moon is made out of green cheese' can be checked to see that it's false through scientific investigation. The statement 'the universe has 600 trillion planets' can be scientifically investigated, however, through principle, rather than through practice. However, Ayer stated the verification of a statement is not the same as proof of a statement, rather, it recognises whether a statement is more, or less probable, not that it is certain.

A flaw of logical positivism is that the claim that 'a statement is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable', as a statement itself, is meaningless (according to the theory itself). This is because it is neither analytic, or can be verified empirically, thus making it a contradiction of the theory itself and therefore branding it unconvincing. Ayer stated that the definition is not supposed to be a verifiable hypothesis like a scientific statement is. He provided arguments as to why it is a good definition, but if we can dismiss these arguments then the definition itself becomes inaccurate.

One criticism of Ayer's principle of verification is that it supposes that all meaningful statements must make statements about the world. It is possible to say that talk of God or moral values are statements about the world, but it seems more accurate to say that they are not to do with the world at all as there is no possibility that we can experience them through sense experience in this life. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are meaningless- it means that they are making a different type of claim that does not immediately relate to the world around us.


Discuss the claim that all mathematical propositions are analytical.

Both rationalists and empiricists accept the claim that mathematical knowledge is a priori, as it seems wrong to say that it is simply a generalisation based on our experience arrived at through inductive, probability based reasoning. The debate is thus whether mathematical knowledge is analytic or synthetic, as if it is synthetic then it will bring down the empiricist theory that all a priori knowledge is analytic.

Therefore, empiricists claim that all mathematical knowledge is a series of definitions. For example, 2+2=4 involves definitions for 'two', 'addition', 'equality' and 'four'. When we know these definitions we can say that the formula is certain to follow from them- thus they are analytic. Rationalists can object by saying that we make discoveries in the field of maths, and its hard to see how this happens if it is only a series of definitions. However, these definitions do not have to be simple, and their complexity means that they can take a very long time to discover. Therefore, it could be argued that the empiricist theory that mathematical knowledge is analytic has more merit.

reason + experience: empiricism

Outline and illustrate the difference between belief and knowledge.

A belief can be true without having any evidence or justification, for example, believing that a horoscope is true, although there has been evidence to suggest that astrology doesn't make accurate predictions. Whereas knowledge needs support and a reason for thinking that what is believed is true; knowledge needs to be justified.

Come up with three examples of analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.

Analytic (true or false just in the virtue of the meaning of the words; definitional):
- a square has four sides
- all bachelors are unmarried men
- a spinster is an unmarried woman

Synthetic (true or false in the virtue of the way the world is):
- snow is white
- grass is green
- soil is brown

Explain and illustrate the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is knowledge of propositions that do not require sense experience to be known or true. For example, 'a square has four sides' - we know that the meaning of the word 'square' is a four-sided shape, therefore we don't need to check via sense experience to know that the proposition is true. Whereas with a posteriori knowledge, sense experience is required for a proposition to be known or true - for example, the proposition 'snow is white': actual sense experience of snow is required to know that it snow is white.

Explain and illustrate the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Rationalism claims that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge of how the world is outside of the mind, i.e. it is possible to know (some) synthetic propositions about the world is (outside our own minds) without relying on sense experience, for example, about morality, mathematics or the physical world.  Empiricism denies that this is possible i.e. it states that we can't have synthetic knowledge about how the world is without the use of sense experience.

A strength of empiricism is that the sources of knowledge are easy to recognise - we simply gain knowledge through our senses by perceiving how the world is; a casual process. Whereas rationalism isn't as simple - rationalists either argue that we have a form of rational 'intuition', or 'insight' which enables us to grasp certain truths intellectually, or that we know certain truths innately.

Explain and illustrate Locke's argument against innate ideas.

Locke argued that ideas cannot be innate because the mind is empty at birth/a blank slate (what he called a 'tabula rasa') - he states that for ideas to be part of the mind from birth we must be conscious of them, but argues that there aren't ideas which are universally known. If this were the case, for example, then even children and 'idiots', would be aware of them. However, it is clear that there are ideas that are known to some, but not others, thus, ideas cannot be innate.

However, it could be argued that the reason children and 'idiots' don't appear to have the same ideas as others is because the innate idea can only be realised with the use of reason, of which children and 'idiots' have not yet developed, thus supporting that ideas can be innate, they just need reason to be realised. However, Locke argued that it is not the use of reason which is necessary, but the development of concepts, for example, the concept of equality is needed to work out 3+3=6. Therefore, concepts must be acquired first so propositions can't be innate, because if they were we wouldn't have to acquire concepts in the first place; we would just know them. Therefore, because no concepts are innate, no propositions can be innate, thus all concepts derive from sense experience.

Compare and contrast Locke's idea of innate ideas with the rationalist view of innate ideas.

Locke's definition of 'innate' ideas differs from the accepted definition amongst rationalists, which is known as nativism. Locke states that the mind is a 'tabula rasa' (empty at birth) and that there are no ideas known from birth, whereas nativism states that ideas have to be triggered to be known, rather than automatically being known from birth. Thus, rationalists argue, that the ideas themselves are still innate, but need some kind of trigger for one to become conscious of them.

For example, in the study of animal behaviour, some baby birds only need to hear a little bit of its species' birdsong to be able to sing itself - this could be explained by saying that birdsong itself is innate, but needs to be triggered for the bird to become fully conscious of it.

Another example is in babies - the ability to learn and speak and language develops at 18 months; rationalists argue that we are genetically coded to speak languages (i.e. they are innate) and sense experience unlocks this ability. Thus, experience still has a role, as the relevant stimuli is needed to trigger something in the first place, however, the ability itself is innate as it's genetically coded.

Explain Locke's idea of how we acquire concepts.

Locke argues that the mind is a blank slate from birth; next, sense experience lets in particular ideas, as this happens through repetition these ideas begin to stay in our memory. In our memory we label these ideas and eventually group them into 'types' - for example, through experiencing the colours red, yellow and blue, we begin to group them and form the concept of 'colour'.

However, a flaw in Locke's theory is that he fails to recognise the difference between sense perception and ideas themselves e.g. the sensation of yellow (seeing it) isn't the same as the concept of yellow. Hume corrects this mistake by taking Locke's ideas a little further - he recognises the role perception plays. However, he states that 'perceptions' are divided into 'impressions' and 'ideas', and further, that 'impressions' are divided into impressions of 'sensation' and impressions of 'reflection'. Impressions of sensation are derived from sense experience, for example, seeing a car. Whereas impressions of reflection are derived from experience of our mind, for example, feelings emotions.

Hume then argues that ideas are 'faint copies' of impressions - he explains this by explaining how the memory of hearing a song, or seeing a scene is fainter/weaker than the actual memory itself; thus, they are faint copies. Like impressions, he divides ideas into ideas of 'sensation' (e.g. the idea of red), and ideas of 'reflection' (e.g. the idea of sadness). Therefore, explaining Hume's theory of how we acquire concepts; by copying them from impressions. Hume's theory is an improvement on Locke's as he recognises that it is not sensory impressions themselves that we remember and use in thinking, but copies of them, thus correcting the obvious distinction between sensory perception and ideas.

Outline and illustrate the empiricist theory of concept acquisition.

Empiricist's believe that we acquire concepts through the use of simple and complex ideas - they believe that simple impressions are the basis of all thought and experience, for example, single colours, shapes and smells. Once we have these simple ideas, we can form more complex ones; for example, the idea of a dog is made up of many ideas of colour, shape and smell, therefore we can identify it as a dog by using our senses.

Abstraction can also be used to form complex ideas - for example, the concept 'dog' doesn't have one particular set of impressions or any single dog (i.e. there are many different types of dogs), so through abstraction specific features are ignored (e.g. ignore different colours and sizes of dogs) and focus on similarities (such as four legs, tail, hairy, bark).

Explain and illustrate the empiricist account of complex concepts.

Locke and Hume argue that new concepts can only be created from the materials provided by impressions - no idea, no matter how abstract or complex, is more than putting together, altering or abstracting from impressions. This is because all complex ideas are composed of simple ideas, and simple ideas are copies of impressions. This argument explains how we can have ideas about complex ideas of which cannot have been derived from sense experience, for instance, unicorns. Empiricists would argue that the complex idea of a 'unicorn' comes from our experience of horses, horns and whiteness (the features which make up a unicorn).

Explain Hume's analysis of the concept SELF, is it possible that there are no 'selves', just thoughts and feelings.

Hume claimed that we don't actually have knowledge of the 'self' as a concept, but that we are mistaken into thinking we do through mistaking the similarities in our experiences with the idea of a 'thing' with identity. By 'similarities', he refers to our continuous thoughts and feelings that appear to be similar to the idea of the 'self' as a thing that exists. However, they are not the same thing, therefore he concludes that there is no such thing as the 'self', but rather a continuous experience of sensory existence.

However, rationalists argue that this would imply that our ideas about the world and the way we perceive it are wrong, which is implausible. The very fact that our concepts are coherent in the way we experience the world (e.g. the fact that we can form the idea of the 'self' in the first place), only shows that we must have innate ideas, since they cannot be proven to be derived from sense experience. Furthermore, while rationalists agree with Hume in recognising that we can't derive these concepts from sense experience alone, they argue that rather than entirely dismissing the existence of these concepts all together (as Hume argues is correct), it is far more plausible to argue that these are innate concepts that are being triggered by our experience.

Explain and illustrate Hume's division of knowledge into two kinds.

Hume's 'fork' theory divides knowledge into two kinds: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas is also known as a priori (doesn't require sense experience to be known or true), which also must mean that it is analytic (true or false just in the virtue of the meaning of the words). For example, all sons have fathers. Relations of ideas refers to a posteriori knowledge (knowledge that requires sense experience) and synthetic propositions (true or false in the virtue of the way the world is).

Hume states that, because all a priori knowledge is analytic, it can't tell us anything about the world, for example, to work out the sum 1+1=2, we are simply relating the ideas of 1, 2, + and =; we aren't learning anything new about the world. Whereas, in cases of matters of fact, we are learning about the world.

Outline Hume's theory of our knowledge of matters of fact.

Hume's theory of our knowledge of matters of fact states that it is a posteriori, thus it requires sense experience to be known. An example of this is receiving a letter with a French postmark and knowing that it is from France - the reason we can know this is because is based on previous experience of different postmarks, letters being posted, realising that postmarks relate to where you post something from etc; without this previous experience, we wouldn't be able to comprehend where the letter is from.

Hume also realised that past experience doesn't make for completely certain knowledge - in the aforementioned example, he recognises that it can't be certain that the letter was from France. This is because knowledge of matters of fact ultimately relies on induction and probability-based reasoning.

expressivism

Compare and contrast Croce's and Collingwood's theories of expression in art.

Collingwood claimed that artist's aren't fully aware of what they are trying to express until their artwork is complete - while they may have conscious 'intentions', there are unconscious, psychological factors that play a larger role. This means that the artist will feel they have expressed something through their finished product, even if they are surprised.

Croce believed that the artist's stimuli must be ordered for experience of the world to be intelligible, and that receiving orderless stimuli is frustrating and painful (similar to the frustration humans tend to feel when they are unable to articulate what they feel). He believed that an artist feels this way when they can't complete a painting or a piece of music; it is known that artist's need to go through a trial and error process to find the exact 'right' way of expressing what they are trying to convey. Croce believed that once this 'right' expression is found, the artist feels aesthetic pleasure.

Croce's theory of expression in art is similar to Collingwood's as they both accept that aesthetic pleasure isn't felt instantly or through directly expressing an emotion; both emphasise the need for the right outlet. Therefore, also, both agree that aesthetic pleasure/insight is gained intuitively, not through inference from an analysis of the features of the work.


Assess the claim that art is expressive.

Croce defended the rejection to expressivism that not all art is expression and not all expression is art: he believed that the idea of finding the exact 'right' way to express something is a form of expression in itself. For example, a pleasant piece of music may not overtly express anything in particular, however, Croce would argue that it expresses the composers idea of how the piece should sound i.e. the trial and error process that would occur in finding precisely the right notes, key and chords, that the composer wanted to express, therefore, expression is still relevant.

However, this view moves away from Croce's claim that what is expressed in art is emotion, and is rather saying that what is expressed in art is the artist's vision (e.g. a vision of how a piece of music should sound). Furthermore, this claim doesn't separate art from what is not considered art - essentially Croce is saying that a type of aesthetic judgement is being made in order to find the artist's precise expression, however, this could be applied to tasks such as getting dressed, decorating a house or making a playlist - all of which aren't generally considered art. Thus, this explanation doesn't quite answer what it is we value about art as it is too general.


Explain and illustrate the claim that ascribing psychological properties to artwork is metaphorical.

In describing what an art-piece expresses, we tend to use emotional terms, such as sad, cheerful, peaceful etc. For example, a Van Gogh self-portrait could be described as melancholic. However, these are psychological terms (apply to people); a painting can't literally be sad or cheerful. It is argued that we use these terms as metaphors - this is because using a term metaphorically is different to experiencing an object literally in those terms, therefore explaining why we use these terms when describing art in the first place. However, it is argued that we don't say describe a painting as 'sad', we actually experience the painting as sad (we see it as sad, metaphorically).

However, this claim would argue that to 'experience' a painting as sad is the same as metaphorically applying the psychological term to it, but, if this claim is right, then to 'experience' a painting as sad is quite different from seeing the marks of paint as the Virgin Mary. It could be argued that seeing-as is a genuine form of perception, whereas 'expressive perception' (experiencing what the painting expresses) isn't a genuine form of perception, as we are seeing the painting (and what it represents) and then consequently, separately applying a metaphor to it. This doesn't seem true to aesethic experience as we see the sadness in the painting.

Furthermore, applying metaphors doesn't explain why we describe paintings as depressing (not depressed, or disturbing (rather than disturbed) - we are not using metaphors, even though there's no fundamental difference in the way the painting expresses the relevant emotion, therefore making this explanation flawed as it is incomplete.


Outline and illustrate the 'intentional fallacy'

The 'intentional fallacy' argues against the idea that we value art because of the artist's intention (their state of mind). The theory states a contrast between the public nature of artwork (something everyone can experience) and the private nature of the mind (the first-hand experience of the individual) - it argues that we can't know exactly what the artist intended when creating the artwork, which is why this can't be the reason why we value art in the first place. Also, it states there is a difference between the artwork and the artist's mind - when looking at art we should be focused on the art itself, not the mind of the artist, this is because the intention of the artist is irrelevant to our own interpretation and aesthetic response. Thus, we can't value the artist's expression because we can't ever know what they were trying to express in the first place.

To understand the artist's intention of a piece of art, we would need to find evidence from the artwork itself (referred to as 'internal evidence') which doesn't require referring to the artist, but simply studying the artwork; this is because the 'intentional fallacy' states that we should value/interpret art entirely on its own merits, and not in terms of the psychological or social background of its creation (its 'external evidence').

past paper, JAN 2013

Illustrating your answer, explain the difference between a posteriori and a priori knowledge. (15 marks)

A priori knowledge is knowledge that does not require sense experience to be known or true, i.e. if you know what the proposition means, you don't need to check experience to know whether it's true. A common example of an a priori proposition is 'all bachelors are unmarried men', in knowing the meaning of the word 'bachelor' (an unmarried man), we can know that the proposition is true, without having to confirm so through subjective experience. Another example is 'all squares have four sides' - again, we know that by definition the term 'square' is a four-sided shape, confirming that the proposition must be true. Furthermore, empiricists believe that all a priori knowledge is analytic (true or false just in the virtue of the meaning of the words).

To contrast, a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that can only be established through sense experience, for example, 'snow is white' - we only know that this proposition is true because of our sense experiences of snow. Empiricists believe that all a posteriori knowledge is synthetic (true or false because of the way the world is).

past paper, JUN 2011

Assess the claim that all knowledge and ideas derive from sense experiences. (30 marks)

plan:

paragraph 1:

• tabula rasa (locke)- agrees with claim- attacks innate claim (children + idiots), nothing the mind knows from birth
• counter-argument: children + idiots don't know to use reason 
• locke: not reason, but concepts that are needed e.g. EQUALITY needs to be known to do 2+2=4

John Locke, an empiricist, would agree with the claim that all knowledge and ideas derive from sense experience - his argument is that the mind is a 'tabula rasa', meaning it is 'empty' from birth (a blank slate), this means that sense experience is necessary to obtain knowledge. To support his argument, he argues that the opposite statement - that knowledge and ideas are innate - is false. He questioned that if we had innate ideas from birth, then there would be ideas that every single person would know, (even children and 'idiots') which, he argued, there are not, therefore ideas cannot be innate.

(CONTINUE WHEN HAVE POSTER AVAILABLE)

past paper, June 2013, reason and experience

Illustrating your answer, explain the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. (15 marks)

Induction and deduction are types of reasoning that we use to gain knowledge. A deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion logically follows the premises. They generally follow the structure: If A, and B, therefore C. A deductive argument is absolutely certain, as long as the premises are true. An example of a deductive argument is the following: Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.

We can contrast this argument with the following: It rained today, and it rained yesterday, and it rained every day before, therefore it will rain tomorrow. This is an inductive argument, meaning that the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises. Hume wrote that induction is probability-based reasoning, founded on our experience. The example above concludes from our previous experience of rain falling that it will likely to rain tomorrow as well. Induction cannot be certain, as no matter how sure I am that it will rain tomorrow it is possible that I will be proved wrong. Even if the probability of the conclusion being false is extremely minute, such as the sun rising tomorrow, it is still not certain to be true.

Descartes believed that we use a thing called 'rational intuition' - he believed this allows us to determine truth just by thinking about the premises of an argument, which is how we know the difference between inductive and deductive arguments when presented with them.

criticisms of formalism

Outline two objections to the claim that significant form is the value of art.

Firstly, Bell's description of significant form and aesthetic emotion is unclear, and thus flawed. He describes significant form as being lines, shapes and colours of certain relation, however, this is basically what form is anyway, therefore making it a meaningless account. He also states that significant form is detected by aesthetic emotion, however, the definition of aesthetic emotion is a reaction to significant form, therefore making his definition circular, and thus vague and meaningless. However, Bell could reply in defence of this flawed explanation by saying that we can only identify the value of an artwork through intuition/feeling, therefore significant form can only be understood through experience for it to be valued, thus explaining why his explanation is vague.

Secondly, it could be argued that Bell's account of formalism is actually a part of expressionism - he states that what makes significant form significant is the expression of the artist's emotions in response to their glimpse of the pure forms of reality, therefore value of form depends on the value of the emotions express, rather than being valuable in its own right. Thus, Bell is describing expressionism (valuing art through the expression of the artist), rather than formalism (valuing art because of its formal properties).

Furthermore, Bell argued that art which doesn't produce 'aesthetic emotion' isn't art at all - they are either descriptive or exist to cause emotions directly (not through significant form). This is flawed as it means he rejects a great deal of art as of secondary value. Therefore, it could be argued that formalism isn't an account of what we value about art, but rather, what formalists say that we should value.

Assess the claim that we value art because it produces an aesthetic enjoyment of form.

The claim that we value art solely because it produces an aesthetic enjoyment of form, firstly, fails to recognise the place that art has in life. Formalism is focused on the form of art alone, a completely unique aesthetic response that cannot be felt elsewhere, and ignores the role of representation. This account of why we value art appears to detach the role art plays in many areas of life, and for many reasons - such as, the importance of context and what the artist is expressing; the importance of the lives of artists and how it affects their work (e.g. cultural and historical context); how art can contribute to self-understanding and illuminate our experience of life in general; it ignores commissioned artworks, such as private portraits and statues. Furthermore, Tolstoy argued that art creates a bond between the artist and the audience, which is ignored by formalists. 

Because of this, formalists reject a huge amount of art, simply because, according to them, it is too tied to life through representation and emotion; this doesn't seem like a complete account of why we value art, thus formalism is flawed.

(development)

Compare and contrast the claims that good art portrays authentically and that it expresses a vision.

The argument that good art portrays authentically is based on an artist's aim to represent reality in the most accurate way possible - it is believed that human beings have a drive to represent the world and a desire to see these representations, thus making it the reason why we value art.

Another theory of why we value about art doesn't depend on the artist's accuracy in their representation of reality, but how the art represents something about reality, if it conveys some kind of 'knowledge' or 'truth'. For example, Picasso's 'Guernica' shows us the horror/brutality of war, thus the audience comes away with this message of the artist's vision.

The link between the two is that representation is relevant/important, however, the latter view states that the accuracy of the representation isn't why we value art, but rather the way the artist uses representation to convey their vision and to express a deeper sense of reality is what makes us value art.

Explain and illustrate the view that good art reveals truths.

Firstly, a particular way that art may express 'truth' is through paying attention to the ordinary - artist's can show how unique and individual objects that we may take for granted are. For example, Van Gogh's 'Chair' is a painting of an everyday object, but which expresses that everything is precisely itself and nothing else, and is to be value for its unique existence.

Furthermore, another example where art may express truth is in novels - a good novel portray's different points of views of different characters, which may help the reader understand how others think and feel, for example, portraying something in a sympathetic light may help the reader understand the world in a different way, thus contributing to the readers self-understanding. Also, a novel may describe universal human experience, for example, growing up, which may also help readers understand themselves.

Lastly, art can reveal truths through portraying idealisations, for example, Palma Vecchio's 'A Blonde Woman' is an expression of the ideal of woman, or of the ideal of 'woman' (as he imagines it); many renaissance artist's tried to represent what is ideal. In focusing on idealisation in art, it can tell us about the object idealised as well as about ourselves and human judgement.

Assess the claim that we value art because it informs us.

Firstly, it could be argued that we do not value art because it informs us because not all art expresses a vision/'truth' - for example, music does not tend to express a vision, but simply expresses emotion. Art that's made just to be enjoyed, for example, pleasant, entertaining music and artefacts (such as rugs and vases) does not express anything, therefore going against the view that we value art because it informs us.

Secondly, it could be argued that focusing just on how we are informed when it comes to art is too intellectual; if this were the case then art would always need to be analysed to be valued or appreciated, but it is obvious that we can simply look at a painting a feel an emotional reaction without having to analyse it. However, it could also be argued that the artist's vision is also valuable for its expressive, emotional qualities, not just the 'truth' it reveals.

Furthermore, most of the time the vision an artist is trying to convey is simply there to be contemplated and enjoyed - there isn't always a message to be taken away from a piece of art, therefore the point of art isn't always to inform us about anything at all.

Lastly, a focus on the information an artist is trying to convey to us isn't what is unique about art - a theological essay can express a religious view, but this doesn't make it art and isn't valued as art. Therefore, rather than being about information, it is the expressive qualities (how the vision is expressed and the emotional qualities of the vision) that we value in art, furthermore, the vision must move us, and it is being moved that contributes to our placing value on art.


Outline the idea of 'free play' of imagination and understanding.

Kant's theory of sense experience states that experiences needs to organised by concepts to be intelligible (otherwise experience would remain a meaningless, confused 'buzz'). He believed that our most basic concepts, known as 'categories', enable us to experience objects. He called the production and application of concepts the 'understanding', and the organisation of stimuli the 'imagination'. In normal perception, the 'understanding' dominates, therefore the organisation of stimuli are constrained by the concepts we apply (for example, walking through a forest: we see trees, then their branches moving gently in the wind). However, if we free imagination up from applying the concept of 'tree', we can see the tree as a person, with its branches as arms, thus giving the imagination a degree of 'free play' (though still guided by the shapes of the trees).

Kant argues that something like this happens in aesthetic response - because he said that we are 'disinterested' in art, we can ignore the question of what something 'really' is i.e. there's no need to constrain our experience by particular concepts. Thus, 'imagination' has free play in how it organises what we see, and our 'understanding' has free play in creating new concepts. He argued that good art enables this ability - it stimulates us to free our imagination and understanding, and to therefore simply enjoy making representations.


Explain Kant's account of the relation between form and aesthetic pleasure.

Kant believed that our response to form (the relation between non-aesthetic features) of an art-piece is what enables us to gain aesthetic pleasure - seeing the beauty of an artwork can't be produced simply from the 'matter' of representations (in vision, colours, in hearing, sounds). For example, colours on their own in a sketch add to part of the 'charm', but they aren't what makes the sketch beautiful, or really worth looking at.

It could be argued that this view of why we value art has the upper-hand over expressionism, as it justifies aesthetic judgements as objective - it manages to draw on disinterested nature of the aesthetic attitude and structure of the mind. In being objective, it claims that objective judgements rely on nothing in particular in the self (no experience or interest is necessary). Thus, Kant claims that everyone who responds to art in the right way (disinterested and noticing form) should make the same aesthetic judgement.


Explain Bell's theory of significant form.

Bell went beyond Kant's idea of form, as he believed that everything has some form or other, therefore the term isn't separated for cases in art; he believed the term 'significant form' to be more appropriate. He believed that only art could have significant form (thus differentiating it), also specifically that good art must have significant form. He argued that representation is irrelevant in art, except for representation of three-dimensional space, otherwise no knowledge of life or emotions are needed.

The theory of significant form states that a person can only know significant form through 'aesthetic emotion' - Bell believed that at artist looks at the world with no concern for association or function of things, and that they are only interested in the pure form of things (thus, they see the world as it really is); this produces an emotion in the artist of which is expressed through significant form of their artwork. The viewers of this art can then experience aesthetic emotion through the expression of the artist's emotion.

It is argued that Bell's theory is very similar to expressionism, however, Bell argued that we should not look for expression or emotion in art, but should focus on significant form; only then will aesthetic emotion be felt.

Explain the claim that an artwork is a clarification of emotion.

Collingwood, a philosopher, believed that art is a clarification of emotion, rather than an outpour of emotion or attempt to deliberately arouse emotion. He claimed that artists aren't fully aware of the emotion they are trying to express until the artwork is complete - although they may have certain conscious 'intentions', unconscious psychological states, emotions, visions and experience of the world play a larger role. This means that artists may be surprised by their finished product, but still feel that they have expressed something. Furthermore, this means, according to Collingwood, that the audience needs to use their imagination to recreate this emotion for themselves.

Collingwood created the term 'art proper' which was to be distinguished from art that expresses emotion for any purpose or entertainment. So, the term should be separated from art as entertainment, whereby the purpose is to arouse and evoke particular emotions to the audience (i.e. there is a clear purpose for expression) - for example, the clear purpose of horror films is for the audience to feel (enjoyable) terrified. Furthermore, 'art proper' is different from art as 'magic' whereby the purpose is to arouse and direct particular emotions, for example, patriotism or, in religious art, a devotion to God.


Explain and illustrate two objections to the view that we value art because it expresses and arouses emotion.

Firstly, it could be argued that we don't value art because it expresses and arouses emotion because not all art expresses emotion - for example, some conceptual art pieces express ideas, not emotions; many artefacts, such as rugs and vases, are beautiful, but don't express feelings; 'nice' music is pleasant to hear, but expresses nothing in particular. Therefore, because art expresses and arouses emotion cannot be the reason why we value art, because this claim ignores many artworks which are clearly enjoyed, but don't express anything in particular. However, Collingwood would argue that the aforementioned artworks are not 'art proper', so should be separated; however, to say that art which is not expressive is not art at all seems like an incomplete and too simplistic of a statement.

Secondly, something that is emotionally expressive is not necessarily art, for example, saying 'I love you'; therefore there must be something else that we value about art to differentiate it from things that are simply emotionally expressive. However, again, Collingwood would argue that this isn't 'art proper' as its purpose is to directly arouse emotion, thus differentiating it from art. However, it could be argued that many religious art pieces which people clearly value, such as Bellini's 'The Dead Christ' was painted to arouse religious experience and emotions, thus going against Collingwood's idea of 'art proper' as not having the purpose of directly arousing emotion. Therefore, not answering what differentiates art from other expressions of emotion.

III. we value art because of its expressive quality

1. EMOTION IN ART: GOOD ART IS MOVING OR CAPTURES A MOOD OR FEELING

Outline and illustrate the view that art expresses emotion.

Representationalism and formalism is flawed as it fails to acknowledge the psychological dimension of art i.e. that it expresses emotion - firstly, it is argued that even in the most abstract of works the artist is trying express themselves, particularly their emotions (not always directly, but in some way). For example, Piet Mondrian's 'Composition C (No. III)' in which he claimed he was trying to express the spiritual sublime - thus supporting the view that art expresses emotion. 

Secondly, we, as an audience, are emotionally moved in response to art - just as art can express a number of different feelings, so it can evoke different feelings. It could be said, then, that there is a special aesthetic way of experiencing emotions; one that takes into account the 'disinterested' nature of aesthetic response (as Kant argued), e.g. maybe we feel them 'in imagination'. For instance, Wordsworth described poetry as 'emotion recollected in tranquility'.

A strength of this theory, firstly, is that it is more accurate that pieces of art express emotion, rather than represent emotion - emotions can be represented, but there is a difference between the emotion being represented in a painting and the emotion expressed by a painting. For example, Jan Steen's 'The Effects of Intemperance' - the scene shows drunken merriment, but the painting as a whole is more of a warning to the negative effects of over-consumption of alcohol. Thus, we are interested in the emotions expressed by the work as a whole when valuing art. [AO2/3]

However, representation isn't irrelevant - there is a close connection between what is represented, how it is represented and the feelings that are being expressed. Grunewald's 'The Crucifixion' expresses horror and pathos with his combination of the tortured body of Christ and his use of colour (sickly greens and yellows). Therefore, what is being represented still contributes to what a piece is trying to express, making it an important element.

Furthermore, non-representational art can equally express or evoke feelings, for example, through its form. For example, in music, we find rhymes, pace and key give us emotional responses - a piece of music with a fast, lively pace in a major key can evoke optimism and joy, whereas a piece with a slow pace in a minor key can evoke sadness. In Mark Rothko's 'Red on Maroon' his use of form can also evoke emotional responses; the sharp edges, the lack of saturation, the smears in the red can feel unsettling, yet noticing how the red rectangle sinks gently into the darker background can feel comforting. Therefore, even non-representational pieces of art can express feelings, thus supporting the overall view.

Our understanding of what an artist is expressing can be increased, also, by looking at the context in which the work was created - (the artists personal life, the tradition that they worked in, the broader cultural context etc). We can deepen our responses to art by trying to see a piece as the audience at the time it was created would. 

Leo Tolstoy defended a version of this theory of why we value art: he believed that art connects the audience to the artist through the artists use of expression '[the artist] hands onto other feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them'; the audience is captivated by the emotions the artist is expressing and so experiences the emotions themselves. Therefore, he believed, that art is valued because it connects humans together and creates bonds with each other on a psychological level. Furthermore, it could be said that a bond is also created between people in the audience as well as they are sharing the same psychological state, thus explaining what we value about art.

The Value of Art

Outline and illustrate two reasons to think good art should portray authentically.

Humans have had a desire to represent the world and see these representations dating back to 30,000 years ago (for example, the caves of Lascaux) to this day (e.g. people putting up photographs on websites). Humans praise art for the which it portrays authentically - we praise it for the way it captures scenes, represents people and is true to life. It is argued that, if a painting claims to represent an object and we cannot see that object, then the painting has failed as a painting. Therefore, the ability to portray objects or situations authentically/genuinely is one we value. This is backed up by the fact that most artists spend years developing and perfecting their techniques to gain the ability to portray their works authentically. It also explains why certain real events, such as the Holocaust, or objects such as mutilated bodies by torture, can seem off-limits to art; this is because the horror, terror and wrongness of an event or object stops it becoming art, as it can seem tasteless and disrespectful.

[NOT FINISHED?]