MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
“There’s no arguing about art” is manifestly false. Art is one of the best things to argue about. The question is why. In this public philosophy debate, Nick Riggle (University of San Diego), Nat Hansen (University of Reading), and Zed Adams (The New School) will face off on the question of why arguing about art matters. At stake are two very different conceptions of public life: a Millian liberal vision which encourages the appreciation of difference and an Emersonian perfectionist vision which aims to converge on a shared conception of the good.
Nick Riggle
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of San Diego
Nick Riggle is a wannabe chef, a dad, a former professional rollerblader, and a Californian born, raised, and residing philosopher who has published work on style, aesthetic discourse, street art, beauty, and other topics in aesthetics and the philosophy of art.
Nat Hansen
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Reading
Nat Hansen is a philosopher who has written about color language, the experimental investigation of meaning, and new wave ordinary language philosophy. He thinks that The Living Daylights is the best James Bond movie.
Zed Adams
Associate Professor of Philosophy
The New School
Zed Adams has the most audio cables of any philosopher he knows. He has written on the philosophy of mind, art, and technology. The Living Daylights is not his favorite Bond film.
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
MC Escher: A Mini-Retrospective
ABSTRACT: Spurred partly by recent attempts to ethically assess various negative effects of the attention economy, philosophers have begun to pay more attention to the role that attention plays in our ethical lives. This has included some more general discussion of the ethics of attention. In this talk, I add to this recent discussion by outlining a proposal for a comprehensive ethics of attention. On my proposal, an ethics of attention includes norms that stem from the role that attention plays in the formation of our character, in constituting our relationships and social roles, and in our other ethical decision making and behavior. Because of attention’s nature as a finite resource, and because our various roles and relationships involve interpersonal expectations for how others allocate their attention, an ethics of attention should provide norms that govern how we collectively allocate our attention among these morally important purposes. Because these morally important purposes are all competing for our attention, one goal of an ethics of attention should be to find practices that help to synergize how people meet these demands. I call such a set of practices a “social-attentional scheme”, and propose that the ultimate goal of an ethics of attention is to find an optimal social-attentional scheme. I conclude by discussing the various ways in which we can understand early Confucian ethics as providing us with one such social-attentional scheme, and propose some lessons we can take from this Confucian example as we try to continue developing a contemporary ethics of attention.
With responses from Elizabeth Edenberg (CUNY Baruch)
Presented by THE COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
NOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUMBIA GUESTS: The door to Philosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you do not have this card please arrive early where someone will be standing outside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late, you can ask someone walking nearby to let you in or contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu. Please only contact Cole as a final resource so as not to interrupt the talk.
RSVP IS REQUIRED FOR DINNER:. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu for further information. RSVPs are limited.