Philosophical Vision: Kant vs. Hume

When Immanuel Kant took the “Copernican Revolution” and made a new argument with Philosophy and Epistemology, it made people’s head turn. Copernicus discovered that it wasn’t the Earth that was the center of the universe; in fact it was the Sun which the Earth rotates around. The same, according to Kant, plays in with the mind. Instead of the mind being the object rotating, the mind is the object in the center and “things” are rotating around the mind to develop the knowledge of them. 

Kant is not only a rationalist; he finds a way to interact empiricism with rationalism towards the bottom of the both of them. Kant has surely accomplished not only one of the strongest arguments, but also the most complicated one, so far, in our class if not to date today. He accomplished the compromising of dogmatism and skepticism.   

It was actually Kant who said of David Hume, “he woke me up from my dogmatic slumber.” Just like Hume’s A Priori (relations of ideas) and A Posteriori (matter of fact), Kant created an analytic stand point and a synthetic stand point. Just like A Priori, the analytic is a predicate that adds nothing to the subject. As well with the A Posteriori, the synthetic is a predicate that adds something to the subject. Both, Hume and Kant, used the examples of science (a posteriori) and mathematics (a priori) to each explanation.\

One of Hume’s points is the argument of causation, i.e. the watchmaker design. The analogy of that in itself draws a number of lines. The fact that it’s an induction instead of a deduction brings problems in itself. It’s neither a priori nor a posteriori since we can’t experience it ever, so it can’t be real. 

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, Kant has an answer to Hume’s skeptical view of causation. Kant created a four way diagram for A priori, a posteriori, analytic, and synthetic to which causation lands in the same area as space and time. Kant also said, “Assume things with the mind for existence.” Examples of those things in themselves would be time, space and causation. Kant also pointed out that you need to already have understanding already in the mind in order to have experience to develop the knowledge. (“Kant and Hume on Causality”)

Work Cited
             De Pierris, Graciela and Friedman, Michael. “Kant and Hume on Causality.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Web. 29 October 2012.

Philosophical Vision: Art vs. Entertainment

The definition of art should fall under Wittgenstein’s open concept. Clarifying if it is ‘good’ art or bad art is irrelevant. The economic value does not always do justice for ‘good’ art and majority of the time, the artist him/herself does not get the awards of value directly until late.

Collingwood’s argument is sketchy, especially against more of the art that falls under the modern genre. Wittgenstein’s open concept also involves the evolving of art from the beginning of time to the present time. A strong argument like today’s film industry is strictly entertainment, but not art or if it is art, it is merely just ‘bad’ art. However, ‘bad’ art is still art. Therefore, it forges a weak argument.

With Wittgenstein’s open concept argument, Hume’s long list can also be in play. All theories that give necessary and sufficient definitions have just as strong counterarguments with the biggest one being the evolution of art in itself and the turning of time.

If art is not entertainment, than Shakespeare is not an artist, either. That can also argue for Kabuki Theatre in Japan is also not art, but craft. No one can argue that Shakespeare or Kabuki Theatere is ‘bad’ art or can they? This argument would fall a subjective approach, rather than objective. One must be alert of the direction, fore the equation is now motus tollens;  entertainment is not art, therefore if it’s entertainment, it’s not art.

Art and entertainment can co-exist within each other. In today’s film and movie productions, you see that in the majority of the final product. A primary example of how today’s film industry can still provide art within its product is Black Swan (Aronofsky). There are different levels of art being displayed in the final product, including but the not limited too, music, fashion, writing, and acting. It is all art coming together for one final piece to be displayed. The same would have fallen with Shakespeare’s plays back in the  16th-17th century.

Aronofsky, Darren, dir. Black Swan. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2010. Film