Hello Everyone!
Firstly I wanted to say thank you to everyone who came to our applicant visit day on Saturday, it was truly wonderful to meet all of you and learn a little bit more about the future students of PPR here at Lancaster. If you didn’t make it this time around, there is lots of information available online in terms of course prospectus, accommodation, years abroad, and so on; most of which can be found here: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/ppr/.
I also really look forward to welcoming all other students joining us for our visit days in the upcoming weeks. Thank you to all who got involved, and for your stimulating questions; hopefully we managed to do a good job of answering them, but if you didn’t manage to get your question in, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
So – a little update on what I’ve been up to so far in the past week. I’ve mostly been working on my dissertation this week, as I’ve set up a meeting with my advisor for Tuesday. I think I was right – taking a break away from it over the Christmas period really has given me a fresh perspective, and consequently, I’ve found a new enjoyment in working on it. I had the opportunity to do this because I was organised when I was told to be! If there is any advice I can give you with regards to the dissertation, it is start early: even if this is reading and acquiring general knowledge. The sooner you start, the better position you will be in to manage your workload. Currently, I have around 9000 words, so the bulk of the essay is there, but my attention is now directed at organising it coherently, as well as adding critical analysis where this is due.
My other modules are really quite enjoyable so far, I am particularly enjoying Reading Political Theory, as the focus of this course is to pursue a closer reading of Rawls’ Theory of Justice – as I mentioned in the last blog, I really enjoy his Politics, and since I took Modern Political Thought last year, I feel like I have somewhat of a head start, having studied some of his works then.
In Aesthetics, we have discussed what constitutes an aesthetic experience. Such a phenomenon is very difficult to describe: but as an example, one can think of the chills you get when hearing a beautiful piece of music. In simpler terms, aesthetic experiences seem to move us in a way that non-aesthetic experiences do not. This might be compared to when we say “I like X”, and “X is beautiful”: the latter seems to have some normative force – we believe others ought to think it beautiful too; it moves us in a way that simply liking something doesn’t. So in one sense, it seems as though our aesthetic judgements are about the properties of some object, an artwork, for example, and on the other, about our subjective experience of encountering the object and how this makes us feel. Things get a little confusing when we consider the fact that we can call something beautiful and yet have no aesthetic experience whilst doing so. This is to say that aesthetic properties, whatever they may be, supervene on non-aesthetic properties (the former are reliant on the existence of the latter.)
So, we are debating whether beauty can be an objective property, or whether beauty can only ever be “in the eye of the beholder.” What is so interesting about this question is that there is such a wide agreement in general as to what is considered beautiful; yet, at the same time, taste varies so widely. Hume’s “Of the Standard of Taste” addresses some of these early issues. I think Hume’s project is to argue that, where there is widespread convergence about beauty, one might be able to say that this suggests beauty exists objectively: think of timeless pieces of art and why such pieces are still widely popular today.
I think one of the general comparisons here is between colour, and our perception of it: think here of Locke’s primary and secondary qualities. This is one of the first things you will encounter on Phil100 if you are a philosophy major and might be useful to get a head start if you haven’t heard of it before: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real-essence/. The essential idea is that we don’t really “see” red, but we do reach broad convergence on objects which are deemed red: given that we aren’t colourblind. What if we are sentiment-blind? Perhaps if colour judgments have objective validity, then as do aesthetic judgments, given we have an enough refined or appropriately good faculty of sentiment judgment. Nonetheless, what explains your love for heavy metal and mine for underground hip-hop?
That’s all today folks,
Ellie