One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in ... more One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in the United States during the past four decades has been an intense, critical, self-conscious, yet constructive attempt to explore the meaning and possibility of the concept of art: what is the essential nature of art in general and the artwork in particular? Can we define 'art' or 'artwork'?1 During the first half of the twentieth century most aestheticians almost took it for granted that providing an answer to this question was the central task of aesthetic theory: to theorize about art meant to seek an understanding of the essential nature of art and to articulate this understanding in a concept or definition, so that if one grasps this concept or definition, one would then know what it means for an object to be a work of art. This knowledge is useful in (1) identifying an object or event as a work of art, (2) explaining the structure of aesthetic experience, and (3) providing a basis for aesthetic interpretation and evaluation.2 But this view was challenged by analytic philosophers like Paul Ziff, Morris Weitz, and William Kennick in the mid-1950s. Weitz, whose essay "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" proved to be very influential and left a lasting impact upon the way we now do aesthetics in the United States, has argued that aesthetic theory is not in principle possible: "Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties; hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult."3 Traditional aesthetic theory labored on the assumption that the concept of art is closed. This is why it sought to capture the essential nature of art in a well-defined formula. But this is a false assumption, Weitz argued, primarily because 'art' is an open concept: there is no essence or a denominator common to all the objects that compose the realm of art. Moreover, by its very nature art is a creative adventure; it is expansive, adventurous; "Its ever-present changes and novel
In chapter five, I first respond to my critic’s query whether it is logically possible to say tha... more In chapter five, I first respond to my critic’s query whether it is logically possible to say that mutual understanding is the primary aim of interreligious dialogue and at the same time one of its conditions. The proposition I shall defend is that it is logically possible to hold that it can be both at the same time. Second, I shall critically evaluate the argument that a religion’s belief is that its revelation is a true revelation of the word of God. This evaluation will consist of two parts. In the first, I shall present an analysis of the main components of this argument, and in the second, I shall critically evaluate them. The proposition I shall defend is that a religion’s self-understanding is not an obstacle in the way of interreligious dialogue.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
Preface Possibility of Moral Education in the Liberal Arts by Michael H. Mitias The Humanities, M... more Preface Possibility of Moral Education in the Liberal Arts by Michael H. Mitias The Humanities, Moral Education, and the Contemporary World by Robert Ginsberg Character Development In The Liberal Arts Student: Notes On An Ecological Perspective by Edwin B. Giventer Moral Pluralism, Intellectual Virtue, and Academic Culture by James Gouinlock The Moral Imagination and the Aesthetics of Human Existence by Thomas M. Alexander Business Ethics and the Liberal Arts by Richard T. De George The Humanities and an Ethics of Care by Betty A. Sichel Ethical Thinking and the Liberal Arts Tradition by John J. Holder Jr. Teachers Should Disclose Their Moral Commitments by Theodore G. Ammon Selected Bibliography Index
The focus of my critical attention in the fourth chapter is on the concept of mutual understandin... more The focus of my critical attention in the fourth chapter is on the concept of mutual understanding: First, what does it mean to understand an object? Second, what does it mean for a religion to understand another religion? Under what conditions is this kind of understanding possible? Under what conditions can understanding be a transformative power? This chapter is composed of two parts. First, I present a concept of understanding; second, I present an analysis of the view that religious self-understanding impedes the possibility of interreligious dialogue; and third, I critically evaluate this view. The proposition I defend is that religious self-understanding does not in principle impede the possibility of interreligious dialogue.
One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in ... more One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in the United States during the past four decades has been an intense, critical, self-conscious, yet constructive attempt to explore the meaning and possibility of the concept of art: what is the essential nature of art in general and the artwork in particular? Can we define 'art' or 'artwork'?1 During the first half of the twentieth century most aestheticians almost took it for granted that providing an answer to this question was the central task of aesthetic theory: to theorize about art meant to seek an understanding of the essential nature of art and to articulate this understanding in a concept or definition, so that if one grasps this concept or definition, one would then know what it means for an object to be a work of art. This knowledge is useful in (1) identifying an object or event as a work of art, (2) explaining the structure of aesthetic experience, and (3) providing a basis for aesthetic interpretation and evaluation.2 But this view was challenged by analytic philosophers like Paul Ziff, Morris Weitz, and William Kennick in the mid-1950s. Weitz, whose essay "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" proved to be very influential and left a lasting impact upon the way we now do aesthetics in the United States, has argued that aesthetic theory is not in principle possible: "Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties; hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult."3 Traditional aesthetic theory labored on the assumption that the concept of art is closed. This is why it sought to capture the essential nature of art in a well-defined formula. But this is a false assumption, Weitz argued, primarily because 'art' is an open concept: there is no essence or a denominator common to all the objects that compose the realm of art. Moreover, by its very nature art is a creative adventure; it is expansive, adventurous; "Its ever-present changes and novel
One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in ... more One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in the United States during the past four decades has been an intense, critical, self-conscious, yet constructive attempt to explore the meaning and possibility of the concept of art: what is the essential nature of art in general and the artwork in particular? Can we define 'art' or 'artwork'?1 During the first half of the twentieth century most aestheticians almost took it for granted that providing an answer to this question was the central task of aesthetic theory: to theorize about art meant to seek an understanding of the essential nature of art and to articulate this understanding in a concept or definition, so that if one grasps this concept or definition, one would then know what it means for an object to be a work of art. This knowledge is useful in (1) identifying an object or event as a work of art, (2) explaining the structure of aesthetic experience, and (3) providing a basis for aesthetic interpretation and evaluation.2 But this view was challenged by analytic philosophers like Paul Ziff, Morris Weitz, and William Kennick in the mid-1950s. Weitz, whose essay "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" proved to be very influential and left a lasting impact upon the way we now do aesthetics in the United States, has argued that aesthetic theory is not in principle possible: "Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties; hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult."3 Traditional aesthetic theory labored on the assumption that the concept of art is closed. This is why it sought to capture the essential nature of art in a well-defined formula. But this is a false assumption, Weitz argued, primarily because 'art' is an open concept: there is no essence or a denominator common to all the objects that compose the realm of art. Moreover, by its very nature art is a creative adventure; it is expansive, adventurous; "Its ever-present changes and novel
In chapter five, I first respond to my critic’s query whether it is logically possible to say tha... more In chapter five, I first respond to my critic’s query whether it is logically possible to say that mutual understanding is the primary aim of interreligious dialogue and at the same time one of its conditions. The proposition I shall defend is that it is logically possible to hold that it can be both at the same time. Second, I shall critically evaluate the argument that a religion’s belief is that its revelation is a true revelation of the word of God. This evaluation will consist of two parts. In the first, I shall present an analysis of the main components of this argument, and in the second, I shall critically evaluate them. The proposition I shall defend is that a religion’s self-understanding is not an obstacle in the way of interreligious dialogue.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
Preface Possibility of Moral Education in the Liberal Arts by Michael H. Mitias The Humanities, M... more Preface Possibility of Moral Education in the Liberal Arts by Michael H. Mitias The Humanities, Moral Education, and the Contemporary World by Robert Ginsberg Character Development In The Liberal Arts Student: Notes On An Ecological Perspective by Edwin B. Giventer Moral Pluralism, Intellectual Virtue, and Academic Culture by James Gouinlock The Moral Imagination and the Aesthetics of Human Existence by Thomas M. Alexander Business Ethics and the Liberal Arts by Richard T. De George The Humanities and an Ethics of Care by Betty A. Sichel Ethical Thinking and the Liberal Arts Tradition by John J. Holder Jr. Teachers Should Disclose Their Moral Commitments by Theodore G. Ammon Selected Bibliography Index
The focus of my critical attention in the fourth chapter is on the concept of mutual understandin... more The focus of my critical attention in the fourth chapter is on the concept of mutual understanding: First, what does it mean to understand an object? Second, what does it mean for a religion to understand another religion? Under what conditions is this kind of understanding possible? Under what conditions can understanding be a transformative power? This chapter is composed of two parts. First, I present a concept of understanding; second, I present an analysis of the view that religious self-understanding impedes the possibility of interreligious dialogue; and third, I critically evaluate this view. The proposition I defend is that religious self-understanding does not in principle impede the possibility of interreligious dialogue.
One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in ... more One of the most distinctive features-reaching the level of preoccupationof aesthetic analysis in the United States during the past four decades has been an intense, critical, self-conscious, yet constructive attempt to explore the meaning and possibility of the concept of art: what is the essential nature of art in general and the artwork in particular? Can we define 'art' or 'artwork'?1 During the first half of the twentieth century most aestheticians almost took it for granted that providing an answer to this question was the central task of aesthetic theory: to theorize about art meant to seek an understanding of the essential nature of art and to articulate this understanding in a concept or definition, so that if one grasps this concept or definition, one would then know what it means for an object to be a work of art. This knowledge is useful in (1) identifying an object or event as a work of art, (2) explaining the structure of aesthetic experience, and (3) providing a basis for aesthetic interpretation and evaluation.2 But this view was challenged by analytic philosophers like Paul Ziff, Morris Weitz, and William Kennick in the mid-1950s. Weitz, whose essay "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" proved to be very influential and left a lasting impact upon the way we now do aesthetics in the United States, has argued that aesthetic theory is not in principle possible: "Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties; hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult."3 Traditional aesthetic theory labored on the assumption that the concept of art is closed. This is why it sought to capture the essential nature of art in a well-defined formula. But this is a false assumption, Weitz argued, primarily because 'art' is an open concept: there is no essence or a denominator common to all the objects that compose the realm of art. Moreover, by its very nature art is a creative adventure; it is expansive, adventurous; "Its ever-present changes and novel
Uploads
Papers by Michael Mitias