Im ersten Teil unseres Aufsatzes charakterisieren wir den Beitrag der ‘modernen’ Wissenschaftstheorie zur Methodologie des Textverstehens; im zweiten Teil diskutieren wir exemplarisch zwei Konzeptionen der ‘neueren’ Hermeneutik. Ziel dieser kritischen Untersuchungen ist eine Förderung des Dialogs zwischen Wissenschaftstheorie, Hermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft.

Discussions of aesthetic reasons and normativity are becoming increasingly popular. This piece outlines six basic questions about aesthetic reasons, normativity, and value and discusses the space of possible answers to these questions. I divide the terrain into two groups of three questions each. First are questions about the shape of aesthetic reasons: what they favour, how strong they are, and where they come from. Second are relational questions about how aesthetic reasons fit into the wider normative landscape: whether they are (...) distinctive, what their normative status is, and how they interact with each other and with non-aesthetic reasons. This piece aims to provide a taxonomy to clarify and organise the burgeoning literature and to make a few concrete suggestions for avenues of future research. (shrink)

Are there aesthetic obligations, and what would account for their binding force if so? I first develop a general, domain‐neutral notion of obligation, then critically discuss six arguments offered for and against the existence of aesthetic obligations. The most serious challenge is that all aesthetic obligations are ultimately grounded in moral norms, and I survey the prospects for this challenge alongside three non‐moral views about the source of aesthetic obligations: individual practical identity, social practices, and aesthetic value primitivism. I conclude (...) by raising questions for further work in this area. (shrink)

There is, I shall assume, such a thing as moral evil (more on which below). My question is whether is also such a thing as non-moral evil, and in particular whether there are such things as aesthetic evil and epistemic evil. More exactly, my question is whether there is such a thing as moral evil but not such a thing as non-moral evil, in some sense that reveals something special about the moral, as opposed to such would-be non-moral domains as (...) the aesthetic and the epistemic. The philosophical issue at stake here is that of the nature of these different normative domains, and the nature and extent of their difference. (shrink)

The paper addresses the issue of ethical obligations in the performance of musical works in the Western classical tradition, arguing that there are indeed such obligations, although they are not categorical. -/- PT: Na tradição clássica ocidental, as obras de arte musicais, teatrais e, até certo ponto, as coreografias, são criadas por artistas-autores, mas necessitam de ser executadas por intérpretes (instrumentistas, cantores e maestros, actores e encenadores, bailarinos, etc.). Estes são assim chamados porque existe sempre uma dose de descricionariedade, não (...) só nas suas decisões sobre o que as instruções inscritas na notação por parte do autor querem "realmente" dizer, como ainda acerca dos muitos aspectos necessária ou voluntariamente deixados em aberto por ele. Limitando-nos aos casos em que é evidente ou relativamente claro que o autor favorece, directamente ou por via das convenções artísticas por si tacitamente aceites, uma forma de interpretação da sua obra entre outras, debruço-me sobre a questão de saber se, para além das considerações estéticas integrantes da decisão de respeitar total ou parcialmente essa forma, há também considerações especificamente morais que sejam relevantes para tal decisão. Os tratamentos filosóficos desta questão tiveram alguma expressão nos anos 80 e 90, sobretudo a propósito do movimento da interpretação musical historicamente correcta ou informada de obras de épocas com as quais se estava a recuperar o contacto perdido em termos de modos de execução e instrumentos específicos dessas épocas. Curiosamente, contrastando com o debate entre a crítica de arte, o debate filosófico é muito menos vivo numa actualidade marcada pelo ecletismo pós-moderno que, sobretudo no teatro e na ópera, trata mesmo os aspectos mais estruturantes das obras como completamente opcionais, ou as obras elas as próprias como materiais para fusão, reconstrução ou improvisação. Revisitando os argumentos em torno do tópico, defenderei a prevalência da posição segundo a qual há uma dimensão moral nas artes performativas, mas que as obrigações daí resultantes não são todas categóricas, tendo diferentes graus de força, e devem ser entendidas como uma variável que tem de ser, em cada caso, ponderada lado a lado com as considerações estéticas. (shrink)

Is aesthetics a product of evolution? Are human aesthetic behaviors in fact evolutionary adaptations? The creation of artistic objects and experiences is an important aesthetic behavior. But so is the perception of aesthetic phenomena qua aesthetic. The question of evolutionary aesthetics is whether humans have evolved the capacity not only to make beautiful things but also to appreciate the aesthetic qualities in things. Are our near-universal love of music and cute baby animals essential to our species’ evolutionary development, which took (...) place over thousands of years? In other words, do aesthetic practice and appreciation help people to survive or reproduce? Do aesthetic behaviors help to propel natural selection? If so, what does that tell us about ourselves as human beings? What does it tell us about art, our other aesthetic practices, and aesthetic experience? (shrink)

ABSTRACT What have natural aesthetics and environmentalism in common? Not much if the former deals with nature as if it were an artwork or a gallery of art objects, or if the latter grounds the protection of nature in consequentialist terms. Suppose, however, one adopts a non-consequentialist environmentalism which, further, stakes out a primary view of nature as terrain rather than as habitat; i.e., a view which is not biocentric (life-centred), let alone anthropocentric. This environmentalism is rooted in the belief (...) that we are prima facie bound not to interfere in any of the world undefined by culture whether or not it supports life. There is a reason forbidding us from strip-mining the far side of the moon, say, even though no habitat is thereby destroyed, nor is there any blight creating visual offence to those immediately affected. To furnish the reason for such an ‘acentric’environmentalism, one needs a natural aesthetic. Why? By elimination, because the stock appeals grounding any moral stance—to rights or interests or happiness or autonomy—are unavailable. The ‘subject’of an acentric environmentalism is insensate. But an ‘acentric’aesthetic seems even more curious than its environmentalist dependent. It would entail an aesthetic viewpoint indifferent to human scale and perspective, the very factors which underwrite any cultural aesthetic. So, is such an aesthetic possible? The barest glimpse of how it might look concludes this paper. (shrink)