Carlson’s Positive Aesthetics
- March 13, 2022
- Posted by: rsispostadmin
- Categories: Geophysics, IJRSI
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume IX, Issue III, March 2022 | ISSN 2321–2705
Kent B. Olson
Graduate Student, Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy, Silenus University of the Sciences and Literature
Member Oxford Philsoc, OUDCE
Abstract: We all know that the protection of the environment is a good thing. With global warming, these concerns are past the point of being trivial. Can there be an argument via the sciences to get more people involved? Can there be one based upon an instrumentalist view? This would be quite a feat. Canadian-born philosopher Allen Carlson tries to do just that with his view of positive aesthetics. This is the view that the environment is worth protecting because it is beautiful. More particularly, since it does have instrumental value, it is beautiful and we should protect it. In this paper, I shall endorse the idea that not all natural phenomena are beautiful. Also the argument commits the is/ought fallacy. Perhaps activists should seek more aid from the arts and sciences from philosophy itself, rather than from the cold deductive logical calculus.
I.INTRODUCTION
Allen Carlson provides a noteworthy deductive argument for his positive aesthetics (PA). During the course of his argumentation, he invokes science. This can allegedly allow for an objective position in terms of aesthetic judgements of nature and ultimately a stance on humankind’s treatment thereof. Carlson’s is an instrumentalist view; there is of course a controversy here that invokes a problem of anthropocentric value. (Thompson, 1993) At first glance, his argument appears to be logically valid. He argues that the correct aesthetic judgment of nature is that it is beautiful when viewed through the lens of science (the correct category). Quite simply, he uses an outlook connected to science to reach his conclusion. There is objective ground here he maintains, to forward an ethical position that natural ecological environments ought to be protected. Colloquially stated, that is the main thrust of his argument.
In this paper, I will show that there are problems with his argument. The proposition that all pristine (unadulterated) nature is beautiful is false due to the fact that there are phenomena that human beings as a whole do not find initially appealing. Other authors have pointed this out, although they do not seem to think that these types of phenomena indicate the ultimate deathknell to Carlson’s position. I do. Snakes, hurricanes, feces, etcetera, are not generally viscerally appealing. These visceral,
