Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Lockea social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailingway of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindlyadopted? The answer is that there is something about Locke’sproject which pushes him strongly in the direction of the socialcontract. One might hold that governments were originally institutedby force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt thisview, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are atthe heart of his project in the Second Treatise, though caseslike the Norman conquest force him to admit that citizens may come toaccept a government that was originally forced on them. Remember thatThe Second Treatise provides Locke’s positive theory ofgovernment, and that he explicitly says that he must provide analternative to the view “that all government in the world ismerely the product of force and violence, and that men live togetherby no other rules than that of the beasts, where the strongest carriesit…” So, while Locke might admit that some governmentscome about through force or violence, he would be destroying the mostcentral and vital distinction, that between legitimate andillegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimategovernment can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimategovernment is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed.(See the section on in the entry on Locke’s political philosophy.) Those who make thisagreement transfer to the government their right of executing the lawof nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which theygive to the central government, and this is what makes the justicesystem of governments a legitimate function of such governments.
Photo provided by Flickr
A seventh argument against defining art, with a normative tinge thatis psychologistic rather than sociopolitical, takes the fact thatthere is no philosophical consensus about the definition of art asreason to hold that no unitary concept of art exists. Concepts ofart, like all concepts, after all, should be used for the purpose(s)they best serve. But not all concepts of art serve all purposesequally well. So not all art concepts should be used for the samepurposes. Art should be defined only if there is a unitary concept ofart that serves all of art’s various purposes—historical,conventional, aesthetic, appreciative, communicative, and so on. So,since there is no purpose-independent use of the concept of art, artshould not be defined (Mag Uidhir and Magnus 2011; cf. Meskin 2008).In response, it is noted that an account of what makes variousconcepts of art concepts of art is still required, whichleaves open the possibility of important commonalities. The fact (ifit is one) that different concepts of art are used for differentpurposes does not itself imply that they are not connected insystematic, ordered ways. The relation between (say) the historicalconcept of art and the appreciative concept of art is not anaccidental, unsystematic relation, like that between river banks andsavings banks, but is something like the relation between Socrates’healthiness and the healthiness of Socrates’ diet. That is, it is notevident that there exist a multiplicity of art concepts, constitutingan unsystematic patchwork. Perhaps there is a single concept of artwith different facets that interlock in an ordered way, or else amultiplicity of concepts that constitute a unity because one is at thecore, and the others depend on it, but not conversely. (The last is aninstance of core-dependent homonymy; see the entry on , section on Essentialismand Homonymy.) Multiplicity alone doesn’t entail pluralism.
What is the Role of Philosophy in Physical Education?
Photo provided by Flickr
We should never doubt that nationalizing the moral life is the first step toward totalitarianism.Kenneth Minogue, [Encounter Books, 2010, pp.2-3]The great liberal political philosopher Isaiah Berlin has popularized Immanuel Kant's "crooked timber of humanity" phrase.
Ancient Greek Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
On the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, something is, or isidentifiable as, an artwork if it resembles, in the right way, certainparadigm artworks, which possess most although not necessarily all ofart’s typical features. (The “is identifiable”qualification is intended to make the family resemblance view somethingmore epistemological than a definition, although it is unclear thatthis really avoids a commitment to constitutive claims aboutart’s nature.) Against this view: since things do notresemble each other simpliciter, but only in at least onerespect or other, the account is either far too inclusive, sinceeverything resembles everything else in some respect or other, or, ifthe variety of resemblance is specified, tantamount to a definition,since resemblance in that respect will be either a necessary orsufficient condition for being an artwork. The family resemblanceview raises questions, moreover, about the membership and unity of theclass of paradigm artworks. If the account lacks an explanation of whysome items and not others go on the list of paradigm works, it seemsexplanatorily deficient. But if it includes a principle that governsmembership on the list, or if expertise is required to constitute thelist, then the principle, or whatever properties the experts’judgments track, seem to be doing the philosophical work.
Philosophy dictionary definition | philosophy defined
My own philosophy derives from a little bit of each of the five basic philosophies with essentialism marginally coming on top and existentialism representing the least of my teaching attitudes....