BAUMGARTEN AESTHETICA EPUB

adminComment(0)

Feb 26, Google-id: lYpKAAAAcAAJ. Identifier: bub_gb_lYpKAAAAcAAJ. Identifier-ark: ark ://t59dq. Ocr: ABBYY FineReader Pages: Jan 16, Aesthetica scripsit rerajeretla.gqeb Bavmgarten by: Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. Publication date: Publisher: impens. I.C. Kleyb. Sep 8, German Aesthetics: Fundamental Concepts from Baumgarten to Adorno by J. D. Mininger. German Aesthetics: Fundamental Concepts from.


Baumgarten Aesthetica Epub

Author:ONIE DEVENDORF
Language:English, Dutch, German
Country:Dominican Republic
Genre:Business & Career
Pages:267
Published (Last):06.01.2016
ISBN:403-3-68343-758-2
ePub File Size:19.31 MB
PDF File Size:18.73 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Downloads:30703
Uploaded by: FOSTER

Alexander Baumgarten (), an influential German philosopher preceding Immanuel Kant, is remembered mainly as a founder of modern aesthetics. Yet his. EPUB/MOBI eBook (Watermarked). $ · PDF eBook ( Watermarked). 'The Aesthetic' and Its Relationship to Business Ethics: Philosophical Underpinnings and Implications for Future rerajeretla.gq Ladkin - - Journal of. It shows that Baumgarten's aesthetics is a science of literature that demonstrates the value of literature to philosophy. Baumgarten did not intend to pursue such.

In this section, I only describe the procedure and results of the case study that is conducted in collaboration with the Institute of Psychoacoustics and Electronic Music IPEM at the University of Ghent, in which I first used the phenomenological interview techniques. The case study was carried out with three professional musicians—a gamba player, clarinetist, and singer. They were instructed to play unfamiliar two pieces, the style of which they were conversant with.

Each piece was first sight-read, then reperformed after 20 minutes worth of practicing. Kim, ; Kim et al. Were they more than simple sight-reading performances? If either yes or not, how did you notice this? Did you consciously monitor your sight-reading performances? If yes, what did this monitoring look like? Were there any bodily or visceral reactions during your sight-reading performances?

If yes, do you remember what they felt like? Did you experience your sight-reading performances as expressive? If either yes or not, what did your experience look like? Did you find your practiced performances expressive? If either yes or not, what did your experience of musical expressiveness look like?

Did you consciously monitor your practiced performances? Were there any bodily or visceral reactions during your practiced performances? During the sight-reading, some visceral reactions indicating tension and stress were noticed instead of bodily reactions that felt natural. This process of empathy was not based on conscious monitoring through reasoning, but was achieved pre-reflectively. Only when something wrong occurred, the performer was explicitly aware of the ongoing process; at that point, the performer tried to improve the performance by focusing on this process, overshadowing the empathic going along with the music.

Bodily and visceral reactions which were felt as negative, in the sense that the musicians would not be used to experiencing such reactions in their normal performance situations, were noticed during the sight-reading, indicating tension, stress or concentration on unfamiliar music. However, in the practiced performances, all three musicians pre-reflectively felt their natural bodily movements going along with the ongoing processes of musical performance.

Performative expressiveness resulting from the performance in which the performer felt unconstrained or less constrained, and more attuned with the ongoing processes of performance, was experienced significantly more during the practiced performances compared to the sight-reading performances; this was due to the newfound familiarity with the music piece from both technical and interpretative points of view.

For the instrumentalists, significant micro-gestures which occurred at the beginning and end of a musical passage, and differed from each other under the two performance conditions, were first manually annotated from the high-speed video. Motion capture data were then used to compare these gestures between both performances. It remained static except for fingering movements in the sight-reading performance, whereas it tended to widen or move outwards and inwards in the practiced performance.

But it has not become clear whether there is a difference between kinaesthetic images and kinaesthetic sensations while experiencing kinaesthetic empathy. Though kinaesthetic sensations normally guide each process of shaping music, they were considerably noticed in the sight-reading performances rather than in the practiced performances.

The practiced performances as experienced by the musicians was barely monitored in the consciousness, but rather felt attuned with and guided by expressive corporeal micro-gestures used pre-reflectively by the musicians. The musicians could retrospectively recall the feeling of their bodily movements going along with the ongoing processes of musical performance.

However, not corresponding precisely only to those objects that are placed in the world to be used as the sound that names them, the word Aesthetics is also able to correspond to that which it is not. Then, what happens?

Does Aesthetics always begin in a contradiction? Is that why we must remain silent about it? Thus, coming from a contradiction, it is clear that the word itself, unsaying what it said, is not able to say anything?

The word Aesthetics, saying what it is and what it is not, does not speak of what is self-annulled, but, on the contrary, of what can be expanded from otherness. Not saying only what the clock says, the word, when Aesthetics, ends up being able to say much more. The more the word Aesthetics supports is exactly that which it is not: the other. After all, before the things we have to deal with in life, constantly state that a clock is a clock - let us not forget that every definition is tautological - even seems like a joke, and in very bad taste.

But if the word Aesthetics cannot support, not conforming to, the mere identity assertion of the objects placed in the world, what does it support, then? Yes, we already mentioned it, the other, the different. Condition of possibility to talk about the same, of the identical. More than the polysemic formation of language, all of it, it is the condition of possibility of the monosemic definition. Therefore, unlike Science language, which must start from the monosemic word and, to that end, must first suppress its semantic possibilities to the narrow limits of definition, the word Aesthetic supports, embracing, what, for the epistemological formation of the world, is a problem to be repressed.

Thus, embracing the polysemy of the words it supports, the Aesthetic discourse is always polysemic. There you go! If we were looking for what could identify Ethics and Aesthetics, it is obvious that we have found it: the Ethical discourse, identical to the Aesthetic discourse, is always polysemic.

Which is no small thing. Because what identifies them is that which forms them, the language they share - and it could not be different for the possibility of identification to exist effectively.

Thus, if somehow we were able to answer the first question of our title when we realized that what makes Ethics and Aesthetics one is the polysemy of the language that forms them, now, let us try to answer the second: what could this have to do with Education? However, to do so, to try and understand what Ethics and Aesthetics, being one, may have to do with education, we first need to know what is the relationship they keep with their antipode, science.

After all, any knowledge is produced by contrasts. Well, when we talk about Education, as it is clear, first of all, we talk. Therefore, Education, as everything properly our own, is a phenomenon of language, without which not even nothingness would come to the world. However, it is not a simple phenomenon either, but rather, a very special one. For, generally speaking, what we understand as Education is the privileged place where the production of insertion and permanence in the language happens - the possibility of entering a world.

The inserted always is in a world previously produced by its own language. When it arrives, the world is already there, conformed to convenient words, and to be inserted in the world going forward, it will always involve the question of conforming, one way or another, to this fact.

Conformation ways correspond to ways of staying in the world. Staying at the world is necessarily being part of its reproduction, as much as of the possibilities of its production. Therefore, ultimately, establishing the correspondence between language and world, Education is especially the place of production and reproduction of the human existence per se mundane.

This is its privilege. As well as its power. There is why, considering the power it possesses, that we generally expect a lot from Education. Bringing the human to the real becomes, therefore, the project of an illuminated world, product of Education.

Hence the need, as part of that project, to draw the limits of the reality accessible to the human, so that we can distinguish what actually is, from what is not, which, clearly, already assumes a choice, the propositional use of language. Although such a choice often arises with the epithet of need, more precisely of logical need, for being a necessity from logic, it is worth mentioning here that it is not exactly a need from choice.

But what is the need of logic so we can use propositional language, in order to, definitely free of any illusion, keep ourselves on the limits of reality? Well, we already know, logic requires, first of all, the suppression of language, until each word that forms its propositional use can only say one thing. Logic is only able to achieve that when directing its castrating voice to empiric objects. Those that can thus be calculated. Ultimately, logic requires the monosemy of words, without which Science could never come to enlighten us, distinguishing what is from what is not, placing us in the midst of reality.

Since education must prepare Citizens for the world as it is.

About Metaphysics

However, which reality is this, governed by technique and science from which we cannot get away? This reality can only be one: the same one produced by the convenient language.

A language that not only determines what is real, but that, in doing so, can only recognize it as one, which could not be otherwise, since the language of Science is only able to recognize what reduces the narrow limits of the monosemic identity.

However, on second thought, it is certainly likely that someone shall appear here saying it could only be valid, perhaps, for example, until the fall of the Berlin Wall, but today things are no longer so.

After all, the time of the Enlightenment is long gone, modern times are behind us, we live in the Postmodernism. Then, it is up to us to ask what is worth on Postmodernism that can invalidate everything that has been said so far? At first glance, it is easy to see that at least the name modernity still applies in the name postmodernity.

Clearly, it is not because we placed a word before it post that it loses its value. It is the other way around. It is from the validity of its value to something like a post can be named. So, if we still must listen to what language says, it is among what is Modern that we can ask questions about its end, what comes next. And it is precisely this that is often done with the name Postmodern in contemporary times: a critique of Modernity regarding the perception of its consumption.

Hence the eagerness for a post. The problem is when we start to confuse the expression of a desire with reality, because by talking so much about the fragmentation of Modern Reason, it seems like our life is fragmented, that we are not part of a mosaic, when what happens seems to be just the opposite of this.

In contemporary times, increasingly, there are almost no ways of living outside the mosaic. The mosaic does not show the image we constructed of the world, it rather shows the way we produce it. We produce the world in accordance with the words that are convenient to it.

We already know that, I confess, it is already sounding somewhat repetitive. However, if for the one who produces the world according to the words that are convenient to them, the following biblical words may warn us: man does not live by bread alone Cf.

Aesthetica

Bible, Mt. It also seems correct to claim that he shall also not live by words alone. Humanity also produces the conditions of possibility of its material existence.

But, indeed, it produces them according to the words it possesses for this end. It is enough to reflect a little and soon we shall realize that the mode of production of the contemporary material existence, fundamentally, is none other than that which began with Modernity.

A mode of production that opens itself from the possibilities of advances in the scientific and technical industries. Such possibilities, whose modes of action include reduction of the simple nature of calculation objects, enable, increasingly, the industry to reduce nature to simple goods, objects of consumption, which shall be calculation objects as well. If we do not get over the mode of production of material existence of Modernity, for not getting over the language that produces it, there is no way to say that we have lived beyond it, that it has stayed behind, even if very recently.

Even if it often may seem like we experience its end. The end of a world is not its annihilation. It is rather a time of rejoicing for the fullness of the statement.

Experience, therefore, of the satisfaction of its desires. Thus, it is always at the peak of its completeness that a world can reach its end. Exactly when it seems perfect and thus finished perfectus.

When philosophers speak of aesthetics as a scholarly discipline, they usually associate it with the philosophy of art and the special value that the arts and nature possess. Over the past several decades, however, the arts and aesthetic practices have continued the direction of the past century in expanding their domain still more rapidly.

The application of aesthetic values to environment is one instance of this expansion, and environmental aesthetics has emerged as an important part of the enlarged scope of aesthetics 1. The understanding of environment itself has grown to include not only the scenic landscape but the urban landscape and the industrial landscape, including their negative aspects. Moreover, the growing awareness of other cultures and their traditions of aesthetic satisfaction have forced our thinking to expand into still other dimensions.

Traditional accounts of aesthetic appreciation are inadequate to identify and illuminate the perceptual satisfactions that these new applications evoke. But not only does an enlarged range of aesthetic appreciation recognize beauties beyond the arts.

It also must account for the range of aesthetic perception into the oneiric, the bizarre, and the terrible, while the social and political significance of aesthetic values has led to the recognition of a wide range of such values, not all of them positive. For their concerns now include not only art and the beauty of nature but the full range of life experience, as well, and this has given aesthetics increased significance and has produced greater confusion.

What do these domains of experience have in common? Is there something that all these modes of experience share in considering them aesthetic? This is the challenging question for aesthetics in our time. The domains of aesthetics 4The key to understanding the aesthetic lies, I believe, in the etymology of that word.

While the meaning of aesthetics has since then become both vaguely generalized to signify something whose appearance is attractive and pleasing, its original philosophical meaning led to aesthetics becoming a technical discipline of philosophy with its imponderables of definition and ontology.

As a philosophical discipline, aesthetics has centered around understanding beauty in art and in nature. Whether aesthetics focuses on the one or the other varies with the time and place.

Of course, people appreciated artistically fashioned objects since the beginnings of human civilization. The earliest surviving artifacts show evidence of workmanship and decoration that indicates deliberate care in fashioning utilitarian objects beyond functional necessity Shiner, Then there are the seemingly gratuitous petroglyphs and images that were inscribed prehistorically on stone outcroppings and the walls of caves in many locations, and ornamental objects and jewelry are typically found in prehistoric grave sites.

These indicate clearly that an aesthetic sensibility has been present from the beginnings of human social organization, if not among our pre-human ancestors 2. Let us recall in brief the main tenets of that understanding. It affirms that our aesthetic judgment of an object is inevitably subjective and cannot even be subsumed under a concept because we cannot affirm the existence of the object, which would imply some access to objectivity and universality.

Thus aesthetic judgment is non-cognitive. The problem then is to establish some connection between our subjective judgments of taste and the object. Kant attempted this by removing any desire or other interest and emulating the disinterestedness that has made scientific knowledge possible in the effort to achieve the semblance of universality by means of a common sense sensus communis Ibid.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gave increasing attention to natural beauty. And while the twentieth century tended to refocus on works of art, recent decades have witnessed not only renewed appreciation of nature but the enlargement of that interest. Environment is now understood more broadly to include the city and the built landscape more generally, as well as wild nature. What is more, aestheticians have extended their scope to embrace the world of everyday experience. In these domains, disinterested contemplation is unlikely and different ways of explaining aesthetic pleasure have been proposed 3.

With over a century of innovation in the arts and the vast enlargement and complexity of appreciative experience, the customary rubrics of explanation have become increasingly inadequate and even irrelevant.

Indeed, developments over the past century have challenged the very conceptual frame of aesthetics: the meaning of art, the condition and character of appreciation, and the scope and place of aesthetic values.

Services on Demand

Art and appreciation have been re-cast, and aesthetic theory must be renewed to accommodate them. Let us consider how this may go. From objects to experience 9It is not surprising that philosophical understanding underlies both traditional aesthetics and its alternatives. Coincident with the emergence of modern aesthetics at the end of the eighteenth century was the establishment of the modern scientific world view.

Formulated by Descartes and implemented by Newton and the pantheon of scientific explorers who followed, the natural world was laid open first to mathematical and then to empirical investigation. What facilitated this was the ability to study nature impersonally and objectively.

The objectification of nature became the key, and philosophical aesthetics carried out the Cartesian revolution by objectifying the objects of appreciation. Art came to mean objects, works of art. Nature, too, was turned into scenery viewed at a distance, favored by the popular Claude glass that turned landscapes into reflected, composed images on a mirror.

The gradual and increasing emancipation from close representation led, in modern painting, to ways of giving pictorial form to the perception of light, of movement, of mass, and of form, transforming them from abstractions into perceptual experience. In the visual arts, impressionism, cubism, futurism, and dada began a direction that turned the art object into an occasion for perceptual, sensible engagement. As in the transition in music from polyphony to tertiary harmony, art has again led theory.

It must now accommodate a complete range of negative as well as positive values. Nor is aesthetic theory confined to the fine arts and nature only: an aesthetic dimension pervades the human world.

What emerges is the understanding that aesthetic appreciation is not an object-centered response that requires a psychological remove and a disinterested attitude. Rather, it is a complex multi-sensory perceptual engagement by means of a cultivated sensibility. It must be seen as a field experience 4. The human organism is infused by the materials and forms of nourishment that are obtained and shaped through the techniques of food production and preparation that are available in the social and cultural setting in which people live, guided by the customs, language, concepts, belief structures, and particular meanings that are prevalent, and finally by the forms of sensibility that are customary.

Living, then, is a perceptually selective, discriminating process in which everyone receives and contributes.

It is a condition of continuities within which we make distinctions, separations, and divisions based on need, customary practices, and tradition. The perceptual factors of this field reflect the full range of sensation and sensible awareness as it is filtered and discriminated in participatory activities.

We inhabit, then, a field of sensate activity that rests on sensation but as sensible perception infused by and related to all the conditions that affect and qualify human experience. Let me try to identify and explore aesthetic sensibility.

Sensibility 5 I have developed the idea of the normative range of aesthetic value in Berleant, In writing o This illuminates the arts of the past as well as of our time, and it recognizes aesthetic value as an often hidden feature of all experience. Such a generalized aesthetic enables us to recognize the presence of a pervasive aesthetic aspect in every experience, whether uplifting or demeaning, exalting or brutal 5.

Aesthetica

It makes the constant expansion of the range of art and of aesthetic experience both plausible and comprehensible. How, then, can we understand sensibility? It is more than simple sensation, more than sense perception.To put it another way, they are words and, therefore, it is clear that they have meaning.

Seamon, David ed. The interviewer acts as a mediator who helps participants reflect on their experience in a conscious way and make it explicit. But that is not all, we also know to what kind of objects it refers to. So, if we still must listen to what language says, it is among what is Modern that we can ask questions about its end, what comes next.

Such possibilities, whose modes of action include reduction of the simple nature of calculation objects, enable, increasingly, the industry to reduce nature to simple goods, objects of consumption, which shall be calculation objects as well.

As it turns out, to the extent that the very effectiveness of the Modern world presupposes the elimination of the other, such a world can only become effective by advancing. And the reason is that language and cognition are separate systems; closely connected, but still separate.

Therefore, going to the second question, still taking language into account, we were able to find a Modern and Postmodern interpretation as well as ways for Education to be inserted therein.