Tehran: Negah-e Moaser Publishing (forthcoming)
AbstractThis work was presented at the Research Center for Philosophy of Science of the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (Iran) – in Aug 2020. --- Briefly, in the first section of this Persian book, first of all, I (Hereafter: the writer) have presented generalities of Aesthetics and an interpretation of aesthetic universality (Hereafter: φ) and it is argued that each definition of art has to admit φ and this is a Kantian, minimalist, and subjective perspective view (some others would incline objective interpretation of φ, but it is beyond the purpose of this work). What's more, this view could be applied to all definitions of art e.g. Functionalism, Conventionalism, or Hybrid Theories. Additionally, the writer has replied to some objections, those would promote definitions of art without φ, it seems that they could not be successful to refuse φ, since it appears that φ is a premise in every aesthetic judgment. Next, in another section, the writer has written some primary notes on creativity, those have come from contemporary literature of it, and it is argued that there is a relation between creativity and φ. It is also claimed that the relation is the same φ by the creative processes, creative products, and creative persons, both scientifically and philosophically; and so, the relation represents that φ is true. Besides that, the writer has presented some potential objections to the writer's aspect of the relation and the writer has also replied to those objections. --- In the next section of the book, the writer has applied the φ by creativity to the philosophy of animal-made art, the writer revolutionarily illustrates that first of all, the normativity of the philosophy of animal-made art is prior to the descriptive one. Second of all, φ is principally the criterion to know that animal-made art is impossible. The writer's position recognizes those other works of animal aesthetics, which means aesthetics of all of the non-human creatures in the earth or cosmos as a new part of environmental aesthetics, is the marginally second order of animal aesthetics. It is owing to the fact that first of all, the question, of whether animal-made art is possible or not, is normative. Second of all, if one does not concern normativity of the question, then one could not get the answer to the nature of it. Next, one could not distinguish between on the one side, the pleasure of drinking water when one's thirst may cause death, on the other side, the one's pleasure of listening to music when there is no urgent necessity of it. The fourth argument is that one needs to identify the normativity of animal-made art because one could generalize aesthetic judgments if one sets φ as the basis of it, and then, one identifies that φ is one of the most fundamental bases in Aesthetics. --- The main section of this book is that the writer's argument -Animal-Made Art Impossibility Argument- is in favor of the impossibility of animal-made art i.e. Functionalist or Conventionalist, or Hybrid Theories of the definitions of animal-made art, also the writer has replied to some possible ideas and objections to the argument. --- Pouya Lotfi Yazdi --- Iran | May 2022
Similar books and articles
Animal Ethics: Beyond Neutrality, Universality, and Consistency.Sreetama Chakraborty - 2016 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):34-45.
The Ethical and Aesthetic Defense of Animal Analogs: A Reply to Turner.Eric B. Litwack - 2006 - Between the Species 13 (6):5.
Evaluating Animal Models: Some Taxonomic Worries.C. Degeling & J. Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (2):91-106.
Institutionalized Ethical Assessments of Animal Experiments.B. Bovenkerk & Lonneke Poort - 2020 - In B. Fischer (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics.
The Philosophy Behind the Movement: Animal Studies Vs. Animal Rights.Elisa Aaltola - 2011 - Society and Animals 19 (4):393-406.
Being Humans: Anthropological Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives.Neil Roughley (ed.) - 2000 - De Gruyter.
Critical Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics.Fredrik Karlsson - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (5):707-720.
Harming Some to Enhance Others.Gary Comstock - 2015 - In Simon Bateman, Jean Gayon, Sylvie Allouche, Jerome Goffette & Michela Marzano (eds.), Inquiring into Animal Enhancement. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 49-78.
The Connection Between Animal Rights and Animal Liberation. [REVIEW]Corinne Painter - 2014 - Radical Philosophy Review 17 (1):293-299.
Philosophy and Animal Studies: Calarco, Castricano, and Diamond.Elisa Aaltola - 2009 - Society and Animals 17 (3):279-286.
The Commonsense Case Against Animal Experimentation.Mylan Engel Jr - 2012 - In Jeremy Garret (ed.), The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 215-236.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Critique of Judgment.Immanuel Kant & Werner S. Pluhar - 1941 - Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.