Rationalism V.S. Functionalism and Their Relation to Art

In the world today there are several ways to view everything.  Art can be viewed either in the way of formalism which states that the purpose of art is to view it in a formal way with the absence of emotion.  Another way to view art is in the form of romanticism, this states that art should be viewed and accepted in manners of which that express emotion in addition to other elements. Romanticism is definitely the more plausible of the two.

A.)  Explanatory breadth encompasses Romanticism over formalism because in art today we truly see how emotions can be taken right out of art.  The reason emotion is so prevalent is because we see pictures in our own ways as individuals, and everyone’s interpretation is different which leads to significant interpretation. If you followed formalism you would not interpret any emotion.

B.)    Romanticism also highlights more explanatory depth.  The reason this is the case is because with the amount of emotion that is taken from art through romanticism, it makes the depth of interpretation and understanding of the emotions portrayed so much more significant.  Formalism doesn’t have the same amount of depth in its works, so in effect there is less explanatory depth in romanticism.

C.)    Simplicity is a very interesting topic to cover when addressing these two theories.  Even though romanticism covers more of the interpretation of art, formalism is definitely the simpler theory as it has less things to cover in its work. As a leading example, formalism doesn’t have to address the emotion in art, therefore it has less to cover and is in effect, simpler.

D.)   Romanticism definitely has more conservatism because it is very in line with the common beliefs that people of the world have.  In our everyday lives there is much more emotion put into what we do and how we do it.  In this manner in reference to art, it can clearly be seen how romanticism is the more commonly followed theory.  In opposition, formalism does not convey the same amount of emotion therefore it does not fit with the common beliefs of the world today.

1.)    Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible theories of art.

2.)    Romanticism possesses more explanatory breadth, depth, and conservatism.  In addition, romanticism does not possess the simplicity that formalism does.

3.)    Therefore, Romanticism is the best theory of art.

Formalism vs. Romanticism

There are two ways to view art. You either view it in the way of Formalism or in the way of Romanticism. Formalism is a view that states that the purpose of art is to view it in a formal way that does not include emotion. Romanticism states that art should be viewed with more than just rational elements and it can express emotion in us. I believe that Romanticism is the most plausible.

(A) Romanticism has more explanatory breadth because it explains more works of art than Formalism does. It does this because when you are looking at a work of art you interpret it with emotion and the romanticism art work is art in which people are expressing themselves through emotion. Formalism art neglects emotion and most people do not do this when they look at or express themselves through art.

(B) Romanticism has more explanatory depth than Formalism because of the emotion romanticism puts into art. The emotion really makes all the difference. It makes the art seem more realistic and heartfelt and those are the things people are going to connect to when they see the artwork. Formalism lacks emotion therefore people cannot have the same deep connection to that kind of art.

(C) Formalism has fewer parts than does Romanticism because with formalism art it is presented in a formal way without emotion but romanticism art has emotion and therefore everyone will have a different interpretation when they look at it whereas with formalism it isn't like that. There aren't as many interpretations or varieties that it can be looked at. It is simpler than romanticism.

(D) Romanticism is more consistent with our common sense beliefs because it uses the expression of emotion and it is realistic. No matter how hard anyone tries they will always have emotions and different things will touch different people. Formalism art is the art of formal beauty so what ever is considered that at the time is what formalism art will portray and that isn't something that everyone can connect with like romanticism art is.

1. Formalism and Romanticism are the two most plausible explanations of art
2. Romanticism has more explanatory breadth,depth, and conservatism than Formalism. But unlike formalism romanticism lacks in simplicity
3. Therefore Romanticism is the best explanation of art.

Blog 4

Sam Elzoul

November 24, 2014

                                                         Formalism vs Romanticism

People view art in two different ways. one way is Formalism which is a view that the purpose of art is to present formal beauty in an apporiate or abstract manner without emotions. Then the secound view is Romanticsim which is a view were nothing is limited to the elements to make us aware of transcendent reality. I believe that both view are fantastic in there own way but I personally would rather view Romanticism because it has more of a meaing to it than Formalism.

(A) Yes, I believe that Romanticism does expalin more facts and work of art than Formalism. I believe this because Romanticism view has more meaing to it and because in romanticism art work people express there emotions which we all have which is why we can realte more to it. That's why I believe that romanticism expalins more because formalism dosen't have any meaning it lacks emotions and basically just somthing nice to look at. Which we can't really realte to. Also formalism neglects emotions because it is disinterested in emotions which is why it is emotionless.

(B) Yes, I believe that Romanticism does expalin aspects of art in greater detail than Formalism. I said this because romanticism art view has emotion and realism which is two area's that formalism lacks. Yea Formalism art is interesting but romaticism has more passion because of the emoition put into it. Also romanticism is more realastic than formalism because with romaticsim people arin't just painting somthing randomly there painting somthing that there feeling which people can realte to that feel the same way. Which is why I believe that romanticism explains more aspects of art than formalism.

(C) Yes, I believe that Formalism has fewer parts or assumptions than Romanticism. I said this because I believe that formalism lacks parts than romanticism like emotion and creativity. Which is why I believe that romanticism is better art view than formalism because it expalins the art more. Which is why I believe that formalism has fewer parts or assumptions than romanticism.

(D) Yes, I believe that roamnticism is more consistent with our current , common sense beliefs than formalism. I said this because romanticism is more consistent with it's art work more than formalism. Romanticism continues to express emotions and realism while formalism changes there art work to anything kind of like free drawing without any meaning. Which is why I believe that Romanticism is more consistent than formalism.

1. Romanticism and Formalism are the most plausible explainations of art work there is.

2. Romantcism has more explanatory depth and simplicity and explanatory breadth than Formalism.

3. Therefore Romanticism is the best explanation for view of art work.

Free Will Debate

Libertarianism is the view that humans have free will; as opposed to hard determinism which states humans lack free will. Libertarianism is the more plausible of the two views to me because although I am a spiritual person I don’t necessarily believe in god. If our actions were pre-determined for us life would have no meaning to us we would be pawns in a greater game. I’d like to believe that we are put on this earth to make our own choices. Nothing is definite in the future just because it happened once doesn’t mean it will happen again so why should we believe that our actions are predetermined if we have the ability to change the future.

Explanatory Breadth: Libertarianism can explain more of human actions then determinism. Humans are constantly doing things that could be seen as evil and malicious; so why would god choose for that to happen in the world?  Humans must have their own free will or else we wouldn’t be able to help stop the things plaguing us like cancer and other diseases. We choose to help others because of free will.

 Explanatory Depth: Once again libertarianism can explain more thoroughly human actions. It can explain human actions in the sense that we can’t explain human actions! Libertarianism gives a reason for the things we can’t explain or justify. It is through free will that people make decisions we cannot understand.

Simplicity: Although determinism can be a scapegoat for human actions libertarianism leaves less room for argument; if we can conclude that people choose their own paths we can stop questioning why god would place evil upon us. Libertarianism leaves much less room for debate then determinism. There are three strong criticisms for why determinism can be adjusted but none for libertarianism.

Conservatism: We can better justify today’s beliefs in science with libertarianism. Although religion is still prevalent in today’s society people are much more open to hearing the facts of science; because we have learned over time that they are the facts. There are miracles that come to play in this world but god cannot fix a flat on the high way for you free will lets someone use the kindness inside to pull over and help. Along with the argument of science god cannot come and help you when you are wounded. It is trained professionals that use science to help heal you.

Libertarianism is the most plausible explanations of human causes. Libertarianism has much more explanatory depth and conservatism whereas Determinism leaves much room for debate. Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of human causes. 

Free Will Debate

Do Human Beings Have Free Will?

The dispute between libertarianism and determinism is the dispute between whether humans have free will, or not. To get a better understanding of this debate, it is necessary to define both of the terms libertarianism and determinism. Libertarianism is the belief that humans have the ability to alter their actions in order to achieve a certain goal without the constraint of necessity or fate. Libertarians believe humans have free will. Hard determinism is the belief that all a persons actions are completely determined by external factors. Hard determinists do not believe in free will, so humans shouldn't be held ethically accountable for their actions, since they are wholly just a product of their environment. After considering the two sides of the free will debate, libertarianism seems to be the most plausible of the two explanations.

One of the reasons why libertarianism seems to be the most plausible is because it can explain more types of human behavior than hard determinism can. For example, you can’t predict with certainty what decisions every person is going to make all the time. You could do this if hard determinism was the case. This shows how people must have free will. You can’t predict with certainty what decisions every person is going to make all the time because the decisions people make are affected by internal forces too, not just external. Therefore, libertarianism has more explanatory breadth than hard determinism.

Hard determinism explains human behavior in greater detail than libertarianism does. For example, libertarianism states humans have free will, and that's how people make decisions. For example free will gives you options. Where the hard determinism explanation of how humans make decisions is much more scientific and can use numbers, which leads to it being more believable. Hard determinism, thinking that the entire universe is mechanical, would be to explain how if we know how particles interact, then we could predict what is going to happen in the future with certainty. For example this gives you just one outcome. This requires more details than just supporting the belief of free will, so hard determinism has more explanatory depth than libertarianism.

The simplicity of libertarianism helps it seem like the most plausible of the two. In libertarianism, it only makes the claim that humans have free will. Hard determinism makes the claim that all of our actions are caused by earlier psychological or physical events. So it claims more unknowns than libertarianism does. You can predict what decision someone is going to make and have a probability of potential outcomes, but you can never be absolutely certain of an outcome, because people possess free will. Where hard determinism claims our decisions are made by two factors, earlier psychological events, memories, or physical events. Libertarianism claims one element causes human actions where hard determinism claims more than one element causes human actions.

Normally people don’t think that everything is predictable, and that predicting the future with certainty is impossible. Also, people are held accountable for their actions in todays society. Hard determinism eliminates moral responsibility, which our current society believes in. For example, no one would go to jail if this is what we believed, since people couldn’t help their actions. Libertarianism states people control their actions, which is why we have jails. Therefore, there is more conservatism in liberalism than there is in hard determinism.

In conclusion, libertarianism is more plausible than its competitor, hard determinism. Although, hard determinism, or having an entirely mechanical universe, would be nice, it is not a plausible belief. Eliminating moral responsibility is a radical implication, also physics does not support that the universe is entirely mechanical.

1.Hard determinism and libertarianism are the most plausible explanations of human actions.

2.Libertarianism has more explanatory breadth, simplicity and conservatism, and hard determinism has more explanatory depth.

3.Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation of human actions.

Free will debate

Libertarianism can be defined as a belief protecting free moral choice, denying determinism. Hard determinism can be defined as every action or event can be predicted in advance, eliminating the concept of free will and moral responsibility. Libertarianism is more plausible to me in the sense that I support  the concept of libertarians. Libertarianism is more plausible than hard determinism due to free will existing that is not determined or occurred randomly and that moral responsibility is a very important concept  to society.

Exploratory Breadth: Libertarianism explains more human behaviors than hard determinists do. Holding people morally responsible for their actions includes a wide range of positive and negative behaviors such as reactive attitudes, internal torment, praise and blame, punishment, and rewards. People choose to act freely making them morally responsible for their actions and they could only be held morally responsible for their free willed actions if the actions were undetermined. For instance, students make the choice of whether or not to do homework. If they were too tired or just being lazy, it was their decision, they were not forced to not complete or complete their homework. Hard determinists fail to address non-causal behaviors. If our actions were determined by antecedent events, then no one should be morally responsible for their actions.

Explanatory Depth:  Hard determinists explains the causes of human behaviors in greater detail than libertarians do. Determinists believe everything has a sufficient cause and that sufficient cause is a cause in which ensures the event in question will actually occur. Since the facts about the universe with the laws of nature imply the future state of the universe, determinists argue that every event has a cause and human actions are events. Libertarians have no epistemic justification on for the claim that people make libertarian choices.

Simplicity: Hard determinists have fewer parts making their main flaw impossible to conceal. although the world operates on deterministic ideas, evidence against determinists include the idea of people knowing they can change by common sense and if they do not feel motivated enough to change, they can act a different way. Libertarians feel that some events are determined by antecedent causes but not all. A desire needs action in order to occur, we need the final judgment of whether or not to act. Free will suggests that all options associated with the choice are possible while determinists believe there is only one possible result.

Conservatism: The theory of libertarianism is more consistent with our current common sense belief than the theory of determinism. Since no one knows how the brain works, we cannot provide reasons supporting the brain makes undetermined or determined choices. Libertarianism is the popularly accepted doctrine in society because it is easy to understand and it makes more sense to the majority of people. The theory of libertarianism is also more attractive to believe that each person is the maker of their decisions and of his or her own future.

Libertarianism and hard determinism are the most plausible explanation of the ultimate causes of human actions.

Libertarianism has much more explanatory breadth and simplicity, whereas hard determinism has a little more explanatory depth, and libertarianism is more conservative than hard determinism.

Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation for the causes of human actions.

The Free Will Debate

     Do we really have free will or is it just a myth? This has been the topic of many discussions among philosophers. The free will debate boils to one question, "What is the cause of human actions/behaviors?" One theory of the free will debate is the Libertarianism. The Libertarians believe that most our actions are generated from spontaneous free will and the rest are generated from external forces. The opposing theory is Determinism. Determinist believe that all of our actions are caused by external forces whether physical or psychological events. Both theories are very relevant and important but, personally, I believe that libertarianism is the more plausible theory.

    Libertarianism believe that most of our actions are caused by our free will. I agree with this because human behaviors cannot be entirely caused by external forces. I do agree that some behaviors are caused by external behavior but not all of our actions are caused by our environment. Many people, including myself, face crossroads in life, we all can choose to take a certain path, that path is not always predetermined or planned. Determinist claims that all our behaviors stem from our physical or psychological environment but Libertarians claim that some of our behaviors are caused by external forces and free will. That is why I agree with Libertarianism, because both external forces and free can causes our actions, not just one. The knee jerk technique done by a doctor is an example of our action directly responding to an external force. When we are given the option between having tea or coffee and we choose coffee, this is an example of free will, we can chose what we want. Libertarianism gives me a more clearer understanding of human behavior, better than Determinism.

Explanatory breadth- Libertarians explain more types of human behavior than determinist. Libertarianism gives two explanation of human behavior rather than just one. They believe that some behaviors are caused by free will and other behaviors are caused by external forces. Determinist only gives one explanation, failing to take into account behaviors that are not caused by external forces. Behaviors such as someone choosing to go to the movies instead of staying home, this might seem like a simple example but that person had a choice, they were not coerced or forced to choose to go the movies, they made it out of their own recognizance. Determinist only see one aspect of human behavior and ignores the other aspects.

Explanatory Depth- Libertarians goes into more depth into human behavior than Determinist. As stated before determinist only covers one aspect of human behavior, the external forces that impact or behavior. Libertarians, however, cover a much wider spectrum. They take into account that there could be more than one reason for human behavior. Thus they have a more in-depth explanation.

Simplicity- Determinism is less complicated than Libertarianism because, of the fewer parts it has. Determinism believes that all human behaviors are caused only by external forces. They believe that human behavior is caused by one thing, libertarians on the other hand believe that there are causes of human behavior, external causes and free will.

Conservatism- Both theories are consistent with our current beliefs. Many people, especially those who are religious, believe that we have free will, because God gave us free will so we can decide our own fate. There are also many people who believe that all of our behaviors stem from external causes like our past experiences, where and how we grow up.

1. Libertarianism and Determinism are the most plausible explanations of the cause of human behavior 

2. Libertarianism has more explanatory depth and breadth, whereas determinism was much simpler. 3.Both libertarianism and determinism are more conservative.

Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of the cause of human behavior

Free Will Debate

                Many may wonder why we do the things we do; is it the free will that we possess or is it something else that is determining our actions. This argument is known as the free will debate. This is a debate that argues all the possible reasons why human beings do what they do. One of the theories is libertarianism, and a libertarian believes that human beings have the ability to control their actions and alter the way they live their lives thus resulting in them having moral responsibility over their actions. The next theory is hard determinism and this states that humans don’t have moral responsibility over their actions. They believe that our actions are caused by external causes such as past events or our environment that we live in. And the last theory is soft determinism. Soft Determinism is the belief that human beings have free will even though their actions are pre-determined by external influences.

From the above three theories, I feel that soft-determinism is more plausible. Soft determinism is a blend of all the three theories. It states that we do have free will and moral responsibility like the libertarians, and past events do influence our actions today like hard determinism. One event that we can look closely at is the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this situation, the government wanted to invade Cuba to stop the communism and to stop the missile they had from being launched. It was up to the current President at the time, JFK, to decide whether he wanted to follow through with the governments order and invade Cuba which might start another world war or come to some agreement with Fidel Castro and the Soviets. JFK had the free will to choose whatever he wanted and he chose to come to an agreement with them. This also plays on his moral responsibility to do what is best for the country. His decision is also based on the relations that the United States had with the Soviet Union through the Cold War and Cuba with the Spanish War. With the US rivals teaming up, they cause a threat to us also resulting in the decision that JFK had to make.

A.      Soft-determinism has more explanatory breath because it shows that we have the free will to make our own decisions and pre-determined events can effect why we do certain things, whereas Hard Determinism is only psychological events and past physical events and Libertarianism is based off spontaneous free will. There is more proof to Soft Determinism than the other two theories.

B.      Soft-determinism has more explanatory depth because it explains in greater detail why human beings behave the way they do. It shows that our free will and other events play a role in our decision making.  

C.      Hard determinism is simpler than soft determinism and libertinism because there is less factors on why people do the things they do compared to the others. In hard determinism we can evaluate the psychological events in a person’s life to identify why they do certain things unlike the other two where you would have to determine others definition of moral responsibility to understand why they do what they do.

D.      Libertarianism is more conservative than the other two because in society today people rely on their moral responsibility to make decisions for them. For example the President makes decisions based off what he thinks is morally right for the country.

1. Soft-determinism, Hard Determinism, and Libertarianism are the most plausible explanations of free will.

2. Soft-determinism has much more explanatory breadth and explanatory depth, whereas Hard Determinism has more explanatory simplicity, and Libertarianism is more conservative.

3. Therefore, Soft Determinism is the best explanation of free will.

Free Will Debate

            One big disagreement and debate that always arises in Philosophy is free will and where the causes from our actions come from. The two sides of the argument are libertarianism and hard determinism. Libertarianism explains that people have some power in voluntary decisions. The free will expressed in this definition is spontaneous free will, which means they can adjust the course of their actions, lives and the world around them. Additionally, some actions are created by other events and people too. On the other hand, hard determinism describes that people have no free will because all events are caused by earlier actions and environment. Also their impression is that their life is already predetermined and they lack moral responsibility in their actions. Since their events in life are already determined then free will is nonexistent in the situation. In my opinion, libertarianism is more plausible than the competitor hard determinism because individuals have a choice in their life but there are certain things they cannot change things that will happen no matter what.

            For explanatory breadth, it questions which theory explains more types of human behavior. Libertarianism clarifies the behavior of human’s more than hard determinism. In order to accomplish human behavior we need to have some free will to do it. Libertarianism is actually able to act on their own belief instead of letting others determine their actions. It also lets us alter the course of the world, which is even more human behavior. Hard determinism cannot say they have the ability to do that since they do not believe in moral responsibilities for their life. Therefore, hard determinism does not have the ability to do as much human behavior because most actions are already determined by previous events for them.

            Hard determinism explains the reason of human behavior in better detail, which makes it explanatory depth. They explain fully all events are determined by earlier psychological, physical or other external causes. Libertarianism fails with providing detail because they just say one has free will to alter their life and then some events are predetermined. They do not express why or how we have free will to do whatever we want. Hard determinism explains their theory clearer and in greater detail by where their actions and events come from.

            Libertarianism is more complex with hidden errors making hard determinism have more simplicity. Hard determinism has fewer parts and assumptions because we know their actions only come from external causes like environments, physical and psychological events. There is nothing to question about the definition because we know that those people have no control over their actions or events in their life. Since libertarianism has two causes this makes it easier for people to find error. Hard determinism has one explanation while libertarianism has two making it more confusing and skeptical.

            Conservatism questions the theory that is more consistent with our current and common sense beliefs. The theory libertarianism provides more current beliefs than hard determinism because people today believe that we have the control over our own decisions. They know some also come naturally from external causes without choice. We all want a purpose and choice in this life and libertarianism allows us to have that. In todays world more people take control of their moral responsibilities because most do not allow other external events control their lives and destiny. People including me want to make their own decisions but there are some things we cannot change that will be in our lives forever. This is why libertarianism is better at providing more current and common sense beliefs.

            In conclusion, libertarianism is a better representation of the cause of human behaviors because we cannot live in a world without any free will. However, in everyone’s lives there are things created by external causes. People need to be allowed moral responsibility or we wouldn’t be able to live our lives and get what we want in life. 

           

1.   Libertarianism and hard determinism are the most plausible explanations of the absolute causes of human behavior.

2.     Libertarianism had much more explanatory breadth and conservatism, where hard determinism has a little more explanatory depth and simplicity.

3.     Therefore, Libertarianism is the best explanation of the absolute causes of human behavior.

Free Will Debate

I do not believe there is spontaneous free will. Therefore my belief is one that falls under the category of a determinist. A determinist claims that all of our actions are generated by external causes such as the physical world or the environment in which one was raised. The opposing view to this is one of the Libertarians who believe that some of our actions are generated by spontaneous free will and some of them are generated by external causes. Basically the argument is whether everything we do is of our choosing or if we do it because of external influences. I believe in the view of the determinists because I believe that free will is just a figment of the human imagination. Everything we do is not due to free will parse but rather all our actions are a result of the influence of our environments. The course of our lives is controlled by the decisions we make, we make those decisions with the information given to us through previous experiences. We will choose whatever we find suitable or that pleases us.

The explanatory breadth of the belief of the determinists explains the entire spectrum of human behavior. Every action we do can be held accountable for the determinists’ theory. I believe Libertarians fail in this area because they believe that some human actions are through spontaneous free will, they fail because it pretty hard to prove the existence of free will and as of right now it also isn’t possible.

In regards to explanatory depth determinists prevail once again. Even if free will were to exist it wouldn’t explain human behavior in greater detail than the determinist’s standpoint. Every action we do can be related to an experience and then another experience. This can explain and detail the cause for our actions in immense detail.

The determinists stand out exceptionally well in the simplicity category. They do not make the assumption that free will exists. The libertarians due and if they didn’t then they would just be determinists and this debate wouldn’t exist.

The libertarian viewpoint is however more current in regards to conservatism. People like to think they have free will and when told they do not get rather upset. The idea that you can do whatever you want is rather huge today.

1.      Hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism    are the most plausible explanations of the ultimate cause of human action.

2.      Hard determinism has much more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, and simplicity, whereas Libertarianism has more in regards to conservatism.

3.      Therefore, determinism is the best explanation of the ultimate cause of human action.

The Free Will Debate

The Free Will Debate

            The free will debate is an argument between determinists and libertarians about human behavior.  Libertarianism is when a person is able to control all of his or her decisions independently.  Meaning that they have control over what happens to them in the future.  Also they believe that some things are caused by external events.  Hard determinism however, is a belief that everything that will happen and has happened to you is determined for you beforehand.  I think that libertarianism is a better option, because I don’t think that everything is predetermined for us, I think that we have the ability to shape our future in any one way that we would like.

            Libertarianism explains human behavior better than determinism.  Libertarianism has two parts to it, external and internal forces for making our decisions.  Humans have the ability to make decisions for themselves.  Saying that everything is predetermined for us is false, everyone has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, libertarianism explains explanatory breadth better then determinism

             Determinism explains explanatory depth in much greater detail than libertinism does.  Determinism explains the human actions in much greater detail, they go into a lot more depth and clarify their predictions about human behavior much better.  Libertinism doesn’t explain to us why some human behaviors happen, like determinism does.

            Determinism is much more simplified than libertarianism. Determinism sticks to the point of everything is determined for us.  However, libertarianism ties in another aspect, where it talks about some of our actions happen not naturally, meaning that we have the ability to decide to take the actions or not. Determinism really simplifies exactly what is happening, and libertarianism brings out the free will debate which complicates things.

            Libertarianism in regards to conservatism wins out determinism.  Today everyone knows that people most of their decisions on their own, everyone has the right to do so.  By being able to do this, humans feel like they can shape their lives any way they can, therefore becoming successful in life and doing whatever they want.  Everyone likes to be in control of whatever is going on, in gives people a sense of leadership and high quality in life.

1.      Determinism and libertarianism are the most explanation of the cause of human actions

2.      Libertarianism had much more explanatory depth and conservation, where determinism has a little more explanatory depth and simplicity.

3.      Therefore Libertarianism is the best explanation of human actions