BRANCHES OF METAPHYSICS

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature

of existence, being and the world. Arguably, metaphysics is the foundation of
philosophy: Aristotle calls it "first philosophy" (or sometimes just "wisdom"),
and says it is the subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of
things".
It asks questions like: "What is the nature of reality?", "How does the world
exist, and what is its origin or source of creation?", "Does the world exist
outside the mind?", "How can the incorporeal mind affect the physical
body?", "If things exist, what is their objective nature?", "Is there a God (or
many gods, or no god at all)?"
Originally, the Greek word "metaphysika" (literally "after physics") merely
indicated that part of Aristotle's oeuvre which came, in its
sequence, after those chapters which dealt with physics. Later, it was
misinterpreted by medieval commentators on the classical texts as that
which is above or beyond the physical, and so over time metaphysics has
effectively become the study of that which transcends physics.
Aritstotle originally split his metaphysics into three main sections and these
remain the main branches of metaphysics:

Ontology (the study of being and existence, including the definition

and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their
properties, and the nature of change)

Natural Theology (the study of God, including the nature of religion and
the world, existence of the divine, questions about the creation, and
the various other religious or spiritual issues)

Universal Science (the study of first principles of logic and reasoning,

such as the law of no contradiction)

Existence and Consciousness

Existence (the fact or state of continued being) is axiomatic (meaning

that it does not rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot
be proven by any "more basic" premises) because it is necessary for
all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth (a
denial of something is only possible if existence exists). "Existence
exists" is therefore an axiom which states that there is something, as
opposed to nothing.
Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies things that
exist. In his famous formulation "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I
am"), Ren Descartes argued that consciousness is axiomatic, because
you cannot logically deny your mind's existence at the same time
as using your mind to do the denying.
However, what Descartes did not make clear is that consciousness is
the faculty that perceives that which exists, so it requires
something outside of itself in order to function: it requires, and is
dependent upon, existence. The primacy of existence states that
existence is primary and consciousness is secondary, because there
can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive.
Existence is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of
consciousness. Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality: it
is completely dependent upon reality.

Mind and Matter

Early debates on the nature of matter centered on identifying a single

underlying principle (Monism): water was claimed by
Thales, air by Anaximenes, Apeiron (meaning "the undefined infinite")
by Anaximander, and fire by Heraclitus. Democritusconceived
an atomic theory (Atomism) many centuries before it was accepted by
modern science.
The nature of the mind and its relation to the body has also exercised
the best brains for millennia. There is a large overlap here
with Philosophy of Mind, which is is the branch of philosophy that
studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental
functions, mental properties and consciousness, and their relationship
to the physical body.
In the 17th Century, Descartes proposed a Dualist solution
called Substance Dualism (or Cartesian Dualism) whereby the mind
and body are totally separate and different: the mental does not have
extension in space, and the material cannot think.
Idealists, like Bishop George Berkeley and the German Idealist school,
claim that material objects do not exist unless perceived(Idealism is
essentially a Monist, rather than Dualist, theory in that there is a single
universal substance or principle).
Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell both adopted, in different ways,
a dual-aspect theory called Neutral Monism, which claims that
existence consists of a single substance which in itself is neither
mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and
physical aspects or attributes.
In the last century, science (particularly atomic
theory, evolution, computer technology and neuroscience) has
demonstrated many ways in which mind and brain interact in
a physical way, but the exact nature of the relationship is still open to
debate. The dominant metaphysics in the 20th Century has therefore
been various versions of Physicalism (or Materialism), aMonist solution
which explains matter and mind as merely aspects of each other,
or derivatives of a neutral substance.

Objects and their Properties

The world contains many individual things (objects or particulars),

both physical and abstract, and what these things have in common
with each other are called universals or properties. Metaphysicians are
interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and
the relationship between the two (see the sections
on Realism and Nominalism).
The problem of universals arises when people start to consider in what
sense it is possible for a property to exist in more than one place at the
same time (e.g. a red car and a red rose). It seems clear that there are
many red things, for example, but is there an existing property of
'redness'? And if there is such a thing as 'redness', what kind of thing is
it? See the section on Realism for a further discussion of this.
Any object or entity is the sum of its parts (see Holism). The identity of
an entity composed of other entities can be explained by reference to
the identity of the building blocks, and how they are interacting. A
house can be explained by reference to the wood, metal, and glass
that are combined in that particular way to form the house; or it could
be explained in terms of theatoms that form it (see the sections
on Atomism and Reductionism).

Identity and Change

Identity is whatever makes an entity definable and recognizable, in terms of

possessing a set of qualities or characteristics that distinguish it from entities
of a different type (effectively, whatever makes something
the same or different). Thus, according to Leibniz, if some
object x is identical to some object y, then any property that x has, y will
have as well, and vice versa (otherwise, by definition, they would not be
identical).
Aristotle's Law of Identity (or the Axiom of Identity) states that to exist,
an existent (i.e. an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing
cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would
be nothing and it would not exist. Also, to have an identity means to have
a single identity: an object cannot have two identities at the same time or in
the same respect. The concept of identity is important because it makes
explicit that reality has a definite nature, which makes it knowable and, since
it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions (when two ideas each
make the other impossible).
Change is the alteration of identities, whether it be a stone falling to earth or
a log burning to ash. For something to change(which is an effect), it needs to
be acted on (caused) by a previous action. Causality is the law that states
that each cause has a specific effect, and that this effect is dependent on the
initial identities of the agents involved.
We are intuitively aware of change occurring over time (e.g. a tree loses a
leaf). The Ancient Greeks took some extreme positions on the nature of
change: Parmenides denied that change occurs at all,
while Heraclitus thought change was ubiquitous.
Currently there are three main theories which deal with the problem of
change:

Mereological Essentialism assumes that an object's parts

are essential to it, and therefore that an object cannot persist through
any change of its parts.

Perdurantism holds that objects are effectively 4-dimensional entities

made up of a series of temporal parts like the frames of a movie (it
treats the tree, then, as a series of tree-stages).

Endurantism, on the other hand, holds that a whole object - and

the same object - exists at each moment of its history, (so that
the same tree persists regardless of how many leaves it loses).

Space and Time

A traditional Realist position is that time and space have existence
independent from the human mind. Idealists, however, claim that space and
time are mental constructs used to organize perceptions, or are
otherwise unreal.
Descartes and Leibniz believed that, without physical objects, "space" would
be meaningless because space is the framework upon which we understand
how physical objects are related to each other. Sir Isaac Newton, on the other
hand, argued for anabsolute space ("container space"), which can continue
to exist in the absence of matter. With the work of Sir Albert Einstein, the
pendulum swung back to relational space in which space is composed
of relations between objects, with the implication that it cannot exist in the
absence of matter.

Although Parmenides denied the flow of time completely in ancient times,

echoed more recently by the British Idealist J.M.E. Mc Taggart (1866 - 1925),
much debate in both philosophy and physics has centred on the direction of
time ("time's arrow"), and whether it is reversible or symmetrical. As for
whether objects persist over time, then
the endurantism / perdurantismdichotomy described above applies.

Religion and Spirituality

Theology is the study of God and the nature of the Divine. This is sometimes
considered a whole separate branch of philosophy, the Philosophy of
Religion (see that section for more detail). It asks questions like:

Does the Divine intervene directly in the world (Theism), or is its sole
function to be the first cause of the universe (Deism)?

Is there one God (Monotheism), many gods (Polytheism) or no

gods (Atheism or Humanism), or is it impossible to
know (Agnosticism)?

Are God and the universe identical (Pantheism, Monism) or are

they different (Panentheism, Dualism)?

Does religious belief depends on faith and revelation (Fideism), or

on reason (Deism)?

Within Western Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, and theology in general,

reached it peak with Medieval Christian schools of thought like Scholasticism.

Space and Time

A traditional Realist position is that time and space has existence
independent from the human mind. Idealists, however, claim that space and
time are mental constructs used to organize perceptions, or are
otherwise unreal.
Descartes and Leibniz believed that, without physical objects, "space" would
be meaningless because space is the framework upon which we understand
how physical objects are related to each other. Sir Isaac Newton, on the other
hand, argued for anabsolute space ("container space"), which can continue
to exist in the absence of matter. With the work of Sir Albert Einstein, the
pendulum swung back to relational space in which space is composed
of relations between objects, with the implication that it cannot exist in the
absence of matter.
Although Parmenides denied the flow of time completely in ancient times,
echoed more recently by the British Idealist J.M.E. Mc Taggart (1866 - 1925),
much debate in both philosophy and physics has centred on the direction of
time ("time's arrow"), and whether it is reversible or symmetrical. As for
whether objects persist over time, then
the endurantism / perdurantismdichotomy described above applies..

Necessity and Possibility

A necessary fact is true across all possible worlds (that is, we could not
imagine it to be otherwise). A possible fact is one that is true

in some possible world, even if not in the actual world. This idea of possible
worlds was first introduced by Gottfried Leibniz, although others have dealt
with it in much more detail since, notably the American analytic
philosopher David Lewis (1941 - 2001) in his theory of Modal Realism.
The concept of necessity and contingency (another term used in philosophy
to describe the possibility of something happening or not happening) is also
central to some of the arguments used to justify the existence or nonexistence of God, notably the Cosmological Argument from Contingency (see
the section on Philosophy of Religion for more details).
Abstract Objects and Mathematics

Back to Top

Some philosophers hold that there are abstract objects (such

as numbers, mathematical objects and fictional entities) and
universals (properties that can be possessed by multiple objects, such as
"redness" or "squareness"), both of which are outside of space and time
and/or are causally inert.
Realism, best exemplified by Plato and his Platonic Forms, teaches that
universals really exist, independently and somehow prior to the world.
On the other hand, (Nominalism), holds that there is really no such thing as
abstract objects, which really exist only as names, because a single object
cannot exist in multiple places simultaneously.
Moderate Realism, as espoused by Aristotle among others, tries to find some
middle ground between Nominalism and Realism, and holds that there is
no realm as such in which universals exist, but rather they are located in
space and time wherever they happen to be manifest. Conceptualism, the
doctrine that universals exist only within the mind and have no external
orsubstantial reality, is also an intermediate solution.
Other positions such as Formalism and Fictionalism do not attribute any
existence to mathematical entities, and are anti-Realist.
The Philosophy of Mathematics overlaps with metaphysics in this area.

Determinism and Free Will

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including
human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken
chain of prior occurrences. Thus, there is at any instant only one
physically possible future, and no
random, spontaneous, mysterious or miraculous events ever occur.
This posits that there is no such thing as Free Will, where rational agents can
exercise control over their own actions and
decisions. Incompatibilists (or Hard Determinists) like Baruch Spinoza, view
determinism and free will as mutually exclusive. Others ,
labeled Compatibility (or Soft Determinists), like Thomas Hobbes, believe
that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled.
It should be noted that Determinism does not necessarily mean that
humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future (that is
known as Fatalism), just that the level to which human beings have influence
over their future is itself dependent on present and past.

Cosmology and Cosmogony

Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the
totality of all phenomena in space and time. Historically, it was often founded
in religion; in modern use it addresses questions about the world and the
universe which arebeyond the scope of physical science. Cosmogony deals
specifically with the origin of the universe, but the two concepts are closely
related.
Pantheists, such as Spinoza, believe that God and the universe are one and
the same. Panentheists, such as Plotinus, believe that the entire universe
is part of God, but that God is greater than the universe. Deists, such
as Voltaire, believe that Godcreated the universe, set everything in motion,
and then had nothing more to do with it. See the section on Philosophy of
Religion for more details.

BRANCHES OF EPISTEMOLOGY
Epistemology is the study of
the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief. It analyzes the nature
of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such
as truth, belief and justification. It also deals with the means of production of
knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. It is
essentially about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of
knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. The kind of knowledge usually
discussed in Epistemology is propositional knowledge, "knowledge-that" as
opposed to "knowledge-how" (for example, the knowledge that "2 + 2 = 4",
as opposed to the knowledge of how to go about adding two numbers).

What Is Knowledge?
Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of particular aspects
of reality. It is the clear, lucid information gained through the process
of reason applied to reality. The traditional approach is that knowledge
requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that knowledge can
then be defined as "justified true belief":

truth: since false propositions cannot be known - for something to

count as knowledge, it must actually be true. AsAristotle famously (but
rather confusingly) expressed it: "To say of something which is that it is
not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to
say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it
is not, is true."

belief: because one cannot know something that one doesn't even
believe in, the statement "I know x, but I don't believe that x is true" is
contradictory.

justification: as opposed to believing in something purely as a matter

of luck.

The most contentious part of all this is the definition of justification, and
there are several schools of thought on the subject:

According to Evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense

is the possession of evidence - a belief is justified to the extent that it
fits a person's evidence.

Different varieties of Reliabilism suggest that either: 1) justification is

not necessary for knowledge provided it is areliably-produced true
belief; or 2) justification is required but any reliable cognitive
process (e.g. vision) is sufficient justification.

Yet another school, Infallibilism, holds that a belief must not only be
true and justified, but that the justification of the belief
must necessitate its truth, so that the justification for the belief must
be infallible.

Another debate focuses on whether justification is external or internal:

Externalism holds that factors deemed "external" (meaning outside of

the psychological states of those who are gaining the knowledge) can
be conditions of knowledge, so that if the relevant facts justifying a
proposition are external then they are acceptable.

Internalism, on the other hand, claims that all knowledge-yielding

conditions are within the psychological states of those who gain
knowledge.

As recently as 1963, the American philosopher Edmund Gettier called this

traditional theory of knowledge into question by claiming that there are
certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all
of the above conditions are met (his Gettier-cases). For example: Suppose
that the clock on campus (which keeps accurate time and is well maintained)
stopped working at 11:56pm last night, and has yet to be repaired. On my
way to my noon class, exactly twelve hours later, I glance at the clock and
form the belief that the time is 11:56. My belief is true, of course, since the
time is indeed 11:56. And my belief is justified, as I have no reason to doubt
that the clock is working, and I cannot be blamed for basing beliefs about the
time on what the clock says. Nonetheless, it seems evident that I do not
know that the time is 11:56. After all, if I had walked past the clock a bit
earlier or a bit later, I would have ended up with a false belief rather than a
true one.

How Is Knowledge Acquired?

Propositional knowledge can be of two types, depending on its source:

a priori (or non-empirical), where knowledge is possible independently

of, or prior to, any experience, and requires only the use of reason (e.g.
knowledge of logical truths and of abstract claims); or

a posteriori (or empirical), where knowledge is possible only

subsequent, or posterior, to certain sense experiences, in addition to
the use of reason (e.g. knowledge of the colour or shape of a physical
object, or knowledge of geographical locations).

Knowledge of empirical facts about the physical world will necessarily

involve perception, in other words, the use of thesenses. But all knowledge
requires some amount of reasoning, the analysis of data and the drawing
of inferences. Intuition is often believed to be a sort of direct access to
knowledge of the a priori.
Memory allows us to know something that we knew in the past, even,
perhaps, if we no longer remember the original justification. Knowledge can
also be transmitted from one individual to another via testimony (that is, my
justification for a particular belief could amount to the fact that some trusted
source has told me that it is true).

There are a few main theories of knowledge acquisition:

Empiricism, which emphasizes the role of experience, especially

experience based on perceptual observations by the five senses in the
formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
Refinements of this basic principle led
to Phenomenalism, Positivism, Scientism and Logical Positivism.

Rationalism, which holds that knowledge is not derived from

experience, but rather is acquired by a priori processes or is innate (in
the form of concepts) or intuitive.

Representationalism (or Indirect Realism or Epistemological Dualism),

which holds that the world we see in conscious experience is not the
real world itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that
world in an internal representation.

Constructivism (or Constructionism), which presupposes that all

knowledge is "constructed", in that it is contingent on convention,
human perception and social experience.

What Can People Know?

The fact that any given justification of knowledge will itself depend on
another belief for its justification appears to lead to aninfinite regress.
Skepticism begins with the apparent impossibility of completing this infinite
chain of reasoning, and argues that, ultimately, no beliefs are justified and
therefore no one really knows anything.
Fallibilism also claims that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible,
or at least that all claims to knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.
Unlike Skepticism, however, Fallibilism does not imply the need
to abandon our knowledge, just to recognize that, because empirical
knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take
as knowledgemight possibly turn out to be false.
In response to this regress problem, various schools of thought have arisen:

Foundationalism claims that some beliefs that support other beliefs

are foundational and do not themselves require justification by other
beliefs (self-justifying or infallible beliefs or those based
on perception or certain a priori considerations).

Instrumentalism is the methodological view that concepts and theories

are merely useful instruments, and their worth is measured by how
effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena.
Instrumentalism therefore denies that theories are truthevaluable. Pragmatism is a similar concept, which holds that
something is true only insofar as itworks and has practical
consequences.

Infinitism typically take the infinite series to be merely potential, and

an individual need only have the ability to bring forth the relevant
reasons when the need arises. Therefore, unlike most traditional
theories of justification, Infinitism considers an infinite regress to be
a valid justification.

Coherentism holds that an individual belief is justified circularly by the

way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which

it is a part, so that the regress does not proceed according to a pattern

of linear justification.

Foundherentism is another position which is meant to be a unification

of foundationalism and coherentism.

BRANCHES OF ETHICS
Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is concerned with questions of how people
ought to act, and the search for a definition of right conduct (identified as the
one causing the greatest good) and the good life (in the sense of a life worth
living or a life that is satisfying or happy).

Ancient Greek Ethics

Socrates, as recorded in Plato's dialogues, is customarily regarded as
the father of Western ethics. He asserted that people will naturally do what
is good provided that they know what is right, and that that evil or bad
actions are purely the result ofignorance: "There is only one good,
knowledge, and one evil, ignorance". He
equated knowledge and wisdom with self-awareness (meaning to be aware
of every fact relevant to a person's existence) and virtue and happiness. So,
in essence, he considered self-knowledge and self-awareness to be
the essential good, because the truly wise (i.e. self-aware) person will know
what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.
According to Aristotle, "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a
person acts in accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full
potential, that they will do good and therefore be content in life. He held
that self-realization (the awareness of one's nature and the development of
one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the ultimate goal, all
other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end. He
encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and
immoral, (e.g. courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of
cowardice and recklessness), and held that Man should not simply live, but
live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle,
denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right time to
the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something
of a tall order.
Cynicism is an ancient doctrine best exemplified by the Greek
philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens.
He taught that a life lived according to Nature was better than one that
conformed to convention, and that a simple life is essential
to virtue and happiness. As a moral
teacher, Diogenes emphasized detachment from many of those things
conventionally considered "good".
Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing
pleasure and minimizing pain. This may range from those advocatingselfgratification regardless of the pain and expense to others and with no
thought for the future (Cyrenaic Hedonism), to those who believe that the
most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.
Somewhere in the middle of this continuum, Epicureanism observed
that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes result in negative consequences,
such aspain and fear, which are to be avoided.
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good
was contentment, serenity and peace of mind, which can be achieved
by self-mastery over one's desires and emotions, and freedom from material

attachments. In particular, sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the

greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. According
to Epictetus,difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather
embraced as spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit.
Pyrrho, the founding figure of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, taught that one
cannot rationally decide between what is good and what is bad although,
generally speaking, self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour,
and he was disinclined to rely uponsincerity, virtue or Altruism as
motivations.
Humanism, with its emphasis on the dignity and worth of all people and their
ability to determine right and wrong purely by appeal to universal human
qualities (especially rationality), can be traced back to Thales, Xenophanes of
Colophon (570 - 480 B.C.), Anaxagoras, Pericles (c. 495 429 B.C.), Protagoras, Democritus and the historian Thucydides (c. 460 375 B.C.). These early Greek thinkers were all instrumental in the move away
from a spiritual morality based on the supernatural, and the development of
a more humanistic freethought (the view that beliefs should be formed on
the basis of science and logic, and not be influenced
by emotion, authority, tradition or dogma).
Normative Ethics

Back to Top

Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics) is the branch of ethics concerned

with establishing how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which
things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. It attempts to
develop a set ofrules governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action.
Normative ethical theories are usually split into three main
categories: Consequentialism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics:

Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an

action is contingent on the action's outcomeor result. Thus, a morally
right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence.
Consequentialist theories must consider questions like "What sort of
consequences count as good consequences?", "Who is the primary
beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences judged and
who judges them?"
Some consequentialist theories include:
o Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to
the most happiness for the greatest number of people
("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of pleasure and
the minimization of pain). The origins of Utilitarianism can be
traced back as far as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but its full
formulation is usually credited to Jeremy Betham, with John
Stuart Mill as its foremost proponent.
o Hedonism, which is the philosophy that pleasure is the most
important pursuit of mankind, and that individuals should strive
to maximise their own total pleasure (net of any pain or
suffering). Epicureanism is a more moderateapproach (which still
seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more
as a state of tranquillitythan pleasure).
o Egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes good
for the self. Thus, Egoism may license actions which are good for
individual, but detrimental to the general welfare. Individual
Egoism holds that all people should do whatever
benefits him. Personal Egoism holds that he should act in his

own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone

else ought to do. Universal Egoism holds that everyone should
act in ways that are in their own interest.
o Asceticism, which is, in some ways, the opposite of Egoism in
that it describes a life characterized by abstinencefrom egoistic
pleasures especially to achieve a spiritual goal.
o Altruism, which prescribes that an individual take actions that
have the best consequences for everyone except for himself,
according to Auguste Comte's dictum, "Live for others". Thus,
individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or
benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self-interest.
o Rule Consequentialism, which is a theory (sometimes seen as an
attempt to reconcile Consequentialism andDeontology), that
moral behaviour involves following certain rules, but that those
rules should be chosen based on the consequences that
the selection of those rules have.
o Negative Consequentialism, which focuses on minimizing bad
consequences rather than promoting good consequences. This
may actually require active intervention (to prevent harm from
being done), or may only require passive avoidance of bad
outcomes.

Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on

the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the
rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues
that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's
duties and other's rights (the Greek 'deon' means 'obligation' or 'duty').
Some deontological theories include:
o Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which
states that an action is right if God has decreedthat it is right,
and that that an act is obligatory if and only if (and because) it
is commanded by God. Thus,moral obligations arise from God's
commands, and the rightness of any action depends upon that
action being performed because it is a duty, not because of
any good consequences arising from that action. William of
Ockham, Ren Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all
accepted versions of this moral theory.
o Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke), which holds that humans
have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights that
are inherent in the nature of ethics, and not contingent on
human actions or beliefs). This eventually developed into what
we today call human rights.
o Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in
humanity's rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral
laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in that he argues that to
act in the morally right way, people must act according to duty,
and that it is the motives of the person who carries out the action
that make them right or wrong, not the consequences of the
actions. Simply stated, the Categorical Imperative states that
one should only act in such a way that one could want
the maxim (or motivating principle) of one's action to become
a universal law, and that one should always treat people as
an end as well as a means to an end.

o Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics

propounded by W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there
are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken
into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted
upon: beneficence (to help other people to increase their
pleasure, improve their character, etc); non-maleficence (to
avoid harming other people); justice (to ensure people get what
they deserve); self-improvement (to improve
ourselves); reparation (to recompense someone if you have
acted wrongly towards them); gratitude (to benefit people who
have benefited us); promise-keeping (to act according to explicit
and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the
truth). In some circumstances, there may
be clashes orconflicts between these duties and a decision must
be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there
are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.
o Contractarian Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism)
claims that moral norms derive theirnormative force from the
idea of contract or mutual agreement. It holds that moral acts
are those that we wouldall agree to if we were unbiased, and that
moral rules themselves are a sort of a contract, and therefore
only people who understand and agree to the terms of the
contract are bound by it. The theory stems initially from
political Contractarianism and the principle of social
contract developed by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Locke, which essentially holds that
people give up some rights to a government and/or other
authority in order to receive, or jointly preserve, social
order. Contractualism is a variation on Contractarianism,
although based more on the Kantian ideas that ethics is an
essentially interpersonal matter, and that right and wrong are a
matter of whether we can justify the action to other people.

Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than

on the nature or consequences of specific actions performed. The
system identifies virtues (those habits and behaviours that will allow a
person to achieve"eudaimonia", or well being or a good life),
counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and
claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect
constitutes, happiness and the good life.
o Eudaimonism is a philosophy originated by Aristotle that
defines right action as that which leads to "well being", and
which can be achieved by a lifetime of practising the virtues in
one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical
wisdom. It was first advocated by Plato and is particularly
associated with Aristotle, and became the prevailing approach to
ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval periods. It fell out of
favour in the Early Modernperiod, but has recently undergone a
modern resurgence.
o Agent-Based Theories give an account of virtue based on
our common-sense intuitions about which character traits
are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc),
which we can identify by looking at the people we admire,
our moral exemplars.
o Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers, and
calls for a change in how we view morality and the virtues,
shifting towards the more marginalized virtues exemplified by

women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to

nurture, self-sacrifice, etc.

Meta-Ethics is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgements,

and seeks to understand the nature of
ethicalproperties, statements, attitudes, and judgements and how they may
be supported or defended. A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical
theory (see below), does not attempt to evaluate specific choices as being
better, worse, good, bad or evil; rather it tries to define the essential
meaning and nature of the problem being discussed. It concerns itself with
second order questions, specifically
the semantics, epistemology and ontology of ethics.
The major meta-ethical views are commonly divided into two camps: Moral
Realism and Moral Anti-Realism:

Moral Realism:
Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) holds that there are objective
moral values, so that evaluative statements are essentially factual
claims, which are either true or false, and that their truth or falsity
are independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards the
things being evaluated. It is a cognitivist view in that it holds
that ethical sentencesexpress valid propositions and are
therefore truth-apt.
There are two main variants:
o Ethical Naturalism
This doctrine holds that there are objective moral properties of
which we have empirical knowledge, but that these properties
are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. It
assumes cognitivism (the view that ethical sentences
express propositions and can therefore be true or false), and that
the meanings of these ethical sentences can be expressed
as natural properties without the use of ethical terms.
o Ethical Non-Naturalism
This doctrine (whose major apologist is G. E. Moore) holds that
ethical statements express propositions (in that sense it is also
cognitivist) that cannot be reduced to non-ethical
statements (e.g. "goodness" is indefinable in that it cannot be
defined in any other terms). Moore claimed that a naturalistic
fallacy is committed by any attempt to prove a claim about
ethics by appealing to a definition in terms of one or
more natural properties (e.g. "good" cannot be defined interms
of "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc).
Ethical Intuitionism is a variant of Ethical Non-Naturalism which
claims that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral
properties or of moral truths.

Moral Anti-Realism:
Moral Anti-Realism holds that there are no objective moral values, and
comes in one of three forms, depending on whether ethical statements
are believed to be subjective claims (Ethical Subjectivism), not genuine
claims at all (Non-Cognitivism) or mistaken objective claims (Moral
Nihilism or Moral Skepticism):
o Ethical Subjectivism, which holds that there are no objective
moral properties and that moral statements are made true or
false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, or

that any ethical sentence merely implies

an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feelingheld by
someone.
There are several different variants:

Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements

reflect sentiments, personal preferences andfeelings rather
than objective facts.

Individualist subjectivism: the view (originally put forward

by Protagoras) that there are as many distinctscales of
good and evil as there are individuals in the world
(effectively a form of Egoism).

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a

thing to be morally right is for it to be approved of by
society, leading to the conclusion that different things are
right for people in different societies anddifferent periods in
history.

Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is

determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal
observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and
informed) would have.

o Non-Cognitivism, which holds that ethical sentences are neither

true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions,
thus implying that moral knowledge is impossible. Again there
are different versions:

Emotivism: the view, defended by A.J. Ayer and C. L.

Stevenson (1908 - 1979) among others, that ethical
sentences serve merely to express emotions, and ethical
judgements are primarily expressions of one's own
attitude, although to some extent they are
also imperatives meant to change the attitudes and actions
of other listeners.

Prescriptivism (or Universal Prescriptivism): the view,

propounded by R.M. Hare (1919 - 2002), that moral
statements function as imperatives which
are universalizable (i.e. applicable to everyone in similar
circumstances) e.g. "Killing is wrong" really means "Do not
kill!"

Expressivism: the view that the primary function of moral

sentences is not to assert any matter of fact, but rather
to express an evaluative attitude toward an object of
evaluation. Therefore, because the function of moral
language is non-descriptive, moral sentences do not have
any truth conditions.

Quasi-Realism: the view, developed from Expressivism and

defended by Simon Blackburn (1944 - ), that ethical
statements behave linguistically like factual claims, and
can be appropriately called "true" or "false" even though
there are no ethical facts for them to correspond to.
Blackburn argues that ethics cannot be entirely realist, for
this would not allow for phenomena such as the gradual
development of ethical positions over time or in differing
cultural traditions.

Projectivism: the view that qualities can be attributed to (or

"projected" on) an object as if those qualities actually
belong to it. Projectivism in Ethics (originally proposed
by David Hume and more recently championed by Simon
Blackburn) is associated by many with Moral Relativism,
and is consideredcontroversial, even though it was
philosophical orthodoxy throughout much of the 20th
Century.

Moral Fictionalism: the view that moral statements should

not be taken to be literally true, but merely auseful fiction.
This has led to charges of individuals claiming to hold
attitudes that they do not really have, and therefore are in
some way insincere.

o Moral Nihilism, which holds that ethical claims are

generally false. It holds that there are no objective values (that
nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc.) because there
are no moral truths (e.g. a moral nihilist would say that murder is
not wrong, but neither is it right).
Error Theory is a form of Moral Nihilism which
combines Cognitivism (the belief that moral language consists
oftruth-apt statements) with Moral Nihilism (the belief that there
are no moral facts).
o Moral Skepticism, which holds that no one has any moral
knowledge (or the stronger claim that no one can have any moral
knowledge). It is particularly opposed to Moral Realism (see
above) and perhaps its most famous proponent is Friedrich
Nietzsche.
An alternative division of meta-ethical views is between:

Moral Absolutism:
The ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which
moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions
are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

Moral Universalism:
The meta-ethical position that there is a universal ethic which applies
to all people, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality,
sexuality or other distinguishing feature, and all the time.

Moral Relativism:
The position that moral or ethical propositions do not
reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make
claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive Ethics is a value-free approach to ethics which examines ethics
from the perspective of observations of actual choices made by moral agents
in practice. It is the study of people's beliefs about morality, and implies the
existence of, rather than explicitly prescribing, theories of value or of
conduct. It is not designed to provide guidance to people in making moral
decisions, nor is it designed to evaluate the reasonableness of moral norms.
It is more likely to be investigated by those working in the fields
of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, history or anthropology,

although information that comes from descriptive ethics is also used in

philosophical arguments.
Descriptive Ethics is sometimes referred to as Comparative Ethics because
so much activity can involve comparing ethical systems: comparing the
ethics of the past to the present; comparing the ethics of one
society to another; and comparing the ethics which people claim to
follow with the actual rules of conduct which do describe their actions.

Applied Ethics
Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical
theory to real-life situations. Strict, principle-based ethical approaches often
result in solutions to specific problems that are not universally
acceptable or impossible to implement. Applied Ethics is much more ready to
include the insights of psychology, sociology and other relevant areas of
knowledge in its deliberations. It is used in determining public policy.
The following would be questions of Applied Ethics: "Is getting an abortion
immoral?", "Is euthanasia immoral?", "Is affirmative action right or wrong?",
"What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" and "Do animals
have rights as well?"
Some topics falling within the discipline include:

Medical Ethics: the study of moral values and judgments as they apply
to medicine. Historically, Western medical ethics may be traced to
guidelines on the duty of physicians in antiquity, such as
the Hippocratic Oath (at its simplest, "to practice and prescribe to the
best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid
harming them"), and early rabbinic, Muslim and Christian teachings.
Six of the values that commonly apply to medical ethics discussions
are: Beneficence (a practitioner should act in the best interest of the
patient, Non-malfeasance ("first, do no harm"),Autonomy (the patient
has the right to refuse or choose their treatment), Justice (concerning
the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who
gets what treatment), Dignity (both the patient and the practitioner
have the right to dignity), Honesty (truthfulness and respect for the
concept of informed consent).

Bioethics: concerns the ethical controversies brought about by

advances in biology and medicine. Public attention was drawn to these
questions by abuses of human subjects in biomedical experiments,
especially during the Second World War, but with recent advances
in bio-technology, bioethics has become a fast-growing academic and
professional area of inquiry. Issues include consideration of cloning,
stem cell research, transplant trade, genetically modified food, human
genetic engineering, genomics, infertility treatment, etc, etc

Legal Ethics: an ethical code governing the conduct of people engaged

in the practice of law. Model rules usually address the client-lawyer
relationship, duties of a lawyer as advocate in adversary proceedings,
dealings with persons other than clients,
law firms and associations, public service, advertising and maintaining
the integrity of the profession. Respect of client
confidences, candour toward the tribunal, truthfulness in statements to
others, and professional independence are some of the defining
features of legal ethics.

Business Ethics: examines ethical principles and moral or ethical

problems that can arise in a business environment. This
includes Corporate Social Responsibility, a concept
whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking
responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers,
employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all
aspects of their operations, over and above the statutory obligation to
comply with legislation.

Environmental Ethics: considers the ethical relationship between

human beings and the natural environment. It addresses questions like
"Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human
consumption?", :Should we continue to make gasoline powered
vehicles, depleting fossil fuel resources while the technology exists to
create zero-emission vehicles?", :What environmental obligations do
we need to keep for future generations?", "Is it right for humans to
knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the (perceived or real)
convenience of humanity?"

Information Ethics: investigates the ethical issues arising from the

development and application of computers and information
technologies. It is concerned with issues like the privacy of information,
whether artificial agents may be moral, how one should behave in the
info sphere, and ownership and copyright problems arising from the
creation, collection, recording, distribution, processing, etc, of
information.

Media Ethics: deals with the specific ethical principles and standards
of media in general, including the ethical issues relating
to journalism, advertising and marketing, and entertainment media.

BRANCHES OF POLITICS
Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about
the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal
code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses
how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society.
Individual rights (such as the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of
happiness, free speech, self-defence, etc) state explicitly the requirements
for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.

Ancient Political Philosophy

Western political philosophy has its origins in Ancient Greece, when citystates were experimenting with various forms of political organization
including monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy and democracy. Among
the most important classical works of political philosophy are Plato's "The
Republic" and Aristotle's "Politics". Later, St. Augustine's "The City of
God" was aChristianized version of these which emphasized the role of the
state in applying mercy as a moral example. After St. Thomas Aquinas's
reintroduction and Christianization of Aristotle's political works,
Christian Scholastic political philosophy dominated European thought for
centuries.
In Ancient China, Confucius, Mencius (372 - 189 B.C.) and Mozi (470 391 B.C.) sought to restore political unity and stability through the cultivation
of virtue, while the Legalist school sought the same end by the imposition
of discipline. Similarly, inAncient India, Chanakya (350 - 283 B.C.) developed

a viewpoint in his "Arthashastra" which recalls both the Chinese Legalists

and the later Political Realist theories of Niccol Machiavelli.
Early Muslim political philosophy was indistinguishable from
Islamic religious thought. The 14th Century Arabic scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332
- 1406) is considered one of the greatest political theorists, and his definition
of government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as
it commits itself" is still considered a succinct analysis. With the recent
emergence of Islamic radicalism as a political movement, political thought
has revived in the Muslim world, and the political ideas of Muhammad
Abduh (1849 - 1905), Al-Afghani (1838 0 1897), Sayyid Qutb (1906 1966), Abul Ala Mawdudi (1903 - 1979), Ali Shariati (1933 - 1977)
and Ruhollah Khomeini (1902 - 1989) have gained increasing popularity in
the 20th Century.
Secular political philosophy began to emerge in Europe after centuries
of theological political thought during the Renaissance.Machiavelli's
influential works, "The Prince" and "The Discourses", described
a pragmatic and consequentialist view of politics, where good and evil are
mere means to an end. The Englishman Thomas Hobbes, well known for his
theory of the social contract (the implied agreements by which people
form nations and maintain a social order), went on to expand this prototype
of Contractarianism in the first half of the 17th Century, culminating in
his "Leviathan" of 1651, which verged on Totalitarianism.

Modern Political Philosophy

During the Age of Enlightenment, Europe entered a sort of golden age of
political philosophy with the work of such thinkers asJohn Locke (whose ideas
on Liberalism and Libertarianism are reflected in the American Declaration of
Independence and whose influence on Voltaire and Rousseau was
critical), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (whose contractarianist political philosophy
influenced the French Revolution, and whose 1762 work "The Social
Contract" became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in
the Western tradition), and the Baron de Montesquieu (1889 - 1755) (whose
articulation of theseparation of powers within government is implemented in
many constitutions throughout the world today).
An important conceptual distinction (which continues to this day) was made
at this time between state (a set of enduringinstitutions through which power
could be distributed and its use justified), and government (a specific group
of people who occupy the institutions of the state, and create the laws by
which the people are bound). Two major questions were broached
byEnlightenment political philosphers: one, by what right or need do people
form states; and two, what is the best form for a state.
Capitalism, with its emphasis on privately-owned means of production and
the market economy, became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th
and 19th Centuries, and particularly during the Industrial Revolution (roughly
the late 18th and early 19th Centuries). In his 1859 essay "On Liberty" and
other works, John Stuart Mill argued that Utilitarianism requires that political
arrangements satisfy the liberty principle (or harm principle), i.e. the sole
purpose of law should be to stop people fromharming others.
By the mid-19th Century, Karl Marx was developing his theory of Dialactical
Materialism and Marxism, and by the late 19th
Century, Socialism, Libertarianism Conservatism and Anarchism were
established members of the political landscape, and thetrade union
movement and syndicalism also gained some prominence. The Russian
Revolution of 1917 brought the radicalphilosophy of Communism to the fore,
and after the First World War, the ultra-reactionary ideologies

of Nationalism, Fascismand Totalitarianism began to take shape

in Italy and Nazi Germany.
In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, (along with a resurgence in the 1960s
and 1970s), the Feminist movement developed its theories and moral
philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women,
as part of a general concern for Egalitarianism. After the Second World War,
there was a marked trend towards a pragmatic approach to political issues,
rather than a philosophical one, and post-colonial, civil
rights and multicultural thought became significant. A relatively recent
development is the concept of Communitarianism and civil society.

BRANCHES OF ESTHETICS
Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and
appreciation of art, beauty and good taste. It has also been defined as
"critical reflection on art, culture and nature". The word "aesthetics" derives
from the Greek "aisthetikos", meaning "of sense perception". Along
with Ethics, aesthetics is part of axiology (the study of values and value
judgements).
In practise we distinguish between aesthetic judgements (the appreciation of
any object, not necessarily an art object) andartistic judgements (the
appreciation or criticism of a work of art). Thus aesthetics is broader in scope
than the philosophy of art. It is also broader than the philosophy of beauty, in
that it applies to any of the responses we might expect works of art or
entertainment to elicit, whether positive or negative.
Aestheticians ask questions like "What is a work of art?", "What makes a
work of art successful?", "Why do we find certain things beautiful?", "How
can things of very different categories be considered equally beautiful?", "Is
there a connection between art and morality?", "Can art be a vehicle of
truth?", "Are aesthetic judgements objective statements or purely subjective
expressions of personal attitudes?", "Can aesthetic judgements be improved
or trained?"
In very general terms, it examines what makes
something beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining,pretent
ious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous or tragic.

Aesthetic Judgements
Judgements of aesthetic value rely on our ability to discriminate at
a sensory level, but they usually go beyond that. Judgments of beauty
are sensory, emotional, and intellectual all at once.
According to Immanuel Kant, beauty is objective and universal (i.e. certain
things are beautiful to everyone). But there is a second concept involved in a
viewer's interpretation of beauty, that of taste, which is subjective and varies
according to class,cultural background and education.
In fact, it can be argued that all aesthetic judgements are culturally
conditioned to some extent, and can change over time(e.g. Victorians in

Britain often saw African sculpture as ugly, but just a few decades later,
Edwardian audiences saw the same sculptures as being beautiful).
Judgments of aesthetic value can also become linked to judgements
of economic, political or moral value (e.g. we might judge an expensive car
to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might
judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption
and offends our political or moral values.)
Aestheticians question how aesthetic judgements can be unified across art
forms (e.g. we can call a person, a house, a symphony, a fragrance and a
mathematical proof beautiful, but what characteristics do they share which
give them that status?)
It should also be borne in kind that the imprecision and ambiguity arising
from the use of language in aesthetic judgements can lead to
much confusion (e.g. two completely different feelings derived from two
different people can be represented by an identical expression, and
conversely a very similar response can be articulated by very different
language).

What is Art?
In recent years, the word art is roughly used as an abbreviation for creative
art or fine art, where some skill is being used to express the artists
creativity, or to engage the audiences aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the
audience towards consideration of the finer things. If the skill being used is
more lowbrow or practical, the word "craft" is often used instead of art.
Similarly, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way, it may
be considered "design" (or "applied art"). Some have argued, though, that
the difference between fine art and applied art or crafts has more to do
with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional
difference.
Since the Dadaist art movement of the early 20th Century, it can no
longer even be assumed that all art aims at beauty. Some have argued that
whatever art schools and museums and artists get away with should be
considered art, regardless of formal definitions (the so-called institutional
definition of art).
Some commentators (including John Dewey) suggest that it is the process by
which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not
any inherent feature of an object or how well received it is by the institutions
of the art world (e.g. if a writerintended a piece to be a poem, it is one
whether other poets acknowledge it or not, whereas if exactly the same set
of words was written by a journalist as notes, these would not constitute a
poem).
Others, including Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910), claim that what makes
something art (or not) is how it is experienced by its audience, not the
intention of its creator.
Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley (1915 - 1985) argue that whether or not
a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a
particular context (e.g. the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function
in one context - carrying wine - and anartistic function in another context).
At the metaphysical and ontological level, when we watch, for example, a
play being performed, are we judging one work of art (the whole
performance), or are we judging separately the writing of the play, the
direction and setting, the performances of the various actors, the costumes,

etc? Similar considerations also apply to music, painting, etc. Since the rise
of conceptual art in the 20th Century, the problem is even more acute (e.g.
what exactly are we judging when we look at Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes?)
Aestheticians also question what the value of art is. Is art a means of gaining
some kind of knowledge? Is it a tool
ofeducation or indoctrination or enculturation? Is it perhaps just politics by
other means? Does art give us an insight into thehuman condition? Does it
make us more moral? Can it uplift us spiritually? Might the value of art for
the artist be quite different than its value for the audience? Might the value
of art to society be different than its value to individuals?

Aesthetic Universals
The contemporary American philosopher Denis Dutton (1944 - ) has
identified seven universal signatures in human aesthetics. Although there are
possible exceptions and objections to many of them, they represent a
useful starting point for the consideration of aesthetics:

Expertise or Virtuosity (technical artistic skills are cultivated,

recognized and admired)

Non-Utilitarian Pleasure (people enjoy art for art's sake, and don't
demand practical value of it)

Style (artistic objects and performances satisfy rules of composition

that place them in recognizable styles)

Criticism (people make a point of judging, appreciating and interpreting

works of art)

Imitation (with a few important exceptions (e.g. music, abstract

painting), works of art simulate experiences of the world)

Special Focus (art is set aside from ordinary life and made a dramatic
focus of experience)

Imagination (artists and their audiences entertain hypothetical worlds

in the theatre of the imagination)

History of Aesthetics
The Ancient Greek philosophers initially felt that aesthetically appealing
objects were beautiful in and of themselves. Plato felt that beautiful objects
incorporated proportion, harmony and unity among their
parts. Aristotle found that the universal elements of beauty
were order, symmetry and definiteness.
According to Islam, human works of art are inherently flawed compared to
the work of Allah, and to attempt to depict in a realistic form any animal or
person is insolence to Allah. This has had the effect of narrowing the field of
Muslim artistic possibility to such forms
as mosaics, calligraphy, architecture and geometric and floral patterns.
Indian art evolved with an emphasis on inducing special spiritual or
philosophical states in the audience, or with representing them symbolically.
As long as go as the 5th Century B.C., Chinese philosophers were already
arguing about aesthetics. Confucius (551 - 479 B.C.) emphasized the role of
the arts and humanities (especially music and poetry) in broadening human

nature. His near contemporaryMozi (470 - 391 B.C.), however, argued that
music and fine arts were classist and wasteful, benefiting the rich but not the
common people.
Western Medieval art (at least until the revival of classical ideals during
the Renaissance) was highly religious in focus, and was typically funded by
the Church, powerful ecclesiastical individuals, or wealthy secular patrons. A
religiously uplifting message was considered more important than figurative
accuracy or inspired composition. The skills of the artisan were
considered gifts from God for the sole purpose of disclosing God to mankind.
With the shift in Western philosophy from the late 17th Century
onwards, German and British thinkers in particular emphasizedbeauty as the
key component of art and of the aesthetic experience, and saw art as
necessarily aiming at beauty. For Friedrich Schiller (1759 - 1805), aesthetic
appreciation of beauty is the most perfect reconciliation of
the sensual and rational parts of human nature. Hegel held that art is the
first stage in which the absolute spirit is immediately manifest to senseperception, and is thus an objective rather than a subjective revelation of
beauty. For Schopenhauer, aesthetic contemplation of beauty is the
most free that the pure intellect can be from the dictates of will.
British Intuitionists like the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713) claimed
that beauty is just the sensory equivalent of moral goodness. More analytic
theorists like Lord Kames (1696 - 1782), William Hogarth (1697 - 1764)
and Edmund Burke hoped to reduce beauty to some list of attributes, while
others like James Mill (1773 - 1836) and Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
strove to link beauty to some scientific theory of psychology or biology.

REFERENCES
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_aesthetics.html
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_metaphysics.html
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_political.html
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html