Artwork of astounding genius requires a spectator (and not just anyone will do!). The materialist magic worked by an artistic genius only affects others; each genius is impervious to their own magic. Diderot's thought is wonderful and really deserves wider attention (if any thought really does deserve attention ...): a masterpiece is incomplete without one who can appreciate it. -/- This is a talk presented (a few years ago) to an audience of nearly none at a conference. I only post (...) it in case there is anyone out there who enjoys Diderot, art, French, hardcore materialism and magic. (shrink)

Dans ses Salons Denis Diderot explique l’aspect communicatif de la peinture. Le peintre de génie partage sa vision cumulative de la beauté naturelle dont il a fait l’expérience. Devant la toile réussie, le spectateur préparé vie sa propre expérience — selon lui la tentative surpassant la beauté naturelle de la nature originaire. Toutefois, semblant transcendante, cette rencontre reste carrément matérialiste. Diderot dévoile l'apparente transcendance. Du point de vue spectatoriel, en communiquant, les œuvres de génie apportent une expérience censée magique qui (...) s'explique de manière empirique: il s'agit de prestidigitation, non pas de sorcellerie. Ainsi, l'explication n'efface pas forcément le merveilleux de l'expérience. Diderot, encyclopédiste, défend la valeur riche de l'expérience, des lumières. Cette communication ciblera la magie ressentie par le spectateur en soulignant que, manque de récepteur convenable la magie s'évapore. Il incombe au spectateur de se préparer — d'où l'importance redoublée de l'expérience — afin que la communication artistique magique le réjouisse. (shrink)

Denis Diderot’s thoroughly materialist metaphysics undergird prescient philosophical analyses; his forays into the field of ethics arguably tend toward what we today would class amongst the range of forward-looking alternative perspectives. It isn’t just that Diderot sketches or even defends the cutting-edge which motivates this paper, but also his use of female characters to reveal crucial insights. Anyone familiar with the prolific author’s body of work realizes that Diderot’s women are certainly not mere “pretty little things.” So it is that (...) his Pensées sur l’interprétation de la nature might seem to smack dissonantly of sexism. My intent is to dispel such a misreading by demonstrating that the Pensées are addressed to the intellectual everyman. To wit, Diderot’s “jeune homme” is both gender and age neutral. Denis Diderot is proven, yet again, to be ahead of his time. -/- THIS IS A NEW VERSION. ERRORS IN PREVIOUS MANUSCRIPT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED; A FEW OTHER ITEMS HAVE BEEN CHANGED>. (shrink)

Thomas Nagel argues that Aristotle identifies rationality as the ergon idion of the human being. Against Nagel, I defend a reading of Aristotle which depicts a complex human ergon. This complex identity involves desire. It is in Book X of the Nichomachean Ethics that my understanding of Aristotle's position is clinched.

Many contemporary moral theories accept and rely upon a singular (often unstated) premise. Contractualisms, traditionally construed rights theories and Millian utilitarianisms all accept a uniquely indefensible claim about the nature of the moral value of rationality. As a result, these moral theories are, despite their differences, equally and seriously marked for reliance on what I will call "the rationality premise". In this work I explain how it is that said reliance guarantees that a theory is impervious to demonstration of soundness. (...) My conclusion deals a serious blow to any theory which relies on the aforementioned premise. (I elsewhere defend an "alternative rights theory" which does not turn on the unique value of rationality, or reason. The work at hand provides the groundwork necessary to a move away from longstanding insistence on human superiority in the carving out of moral theory. (shrink)

I take issue with an argument to the effect that because contractualism proves--both practically and theoretically--the philosophically superior moral theory, we have the result that nonhuman animals can have no, nor ought be extended any, moral standing. The combined argument belongs to Peter Carruthers, and appears in his The Animals Issue. My response involves demonstration that on careful analysis contractualism fares even less well than the two theories against which Carruthers compares it--rights and utilitarian. Furthermore, I offer a sketch of (...) a theory which does not fall for reliance on a singularly problematic premise--a premise which plays pivotally in traditional contractualist, rights and utilitarian accounts. The upshot is that this "alternative rights theory" fares best in reflective equilibrium analysis as against not only those theories Carruthers decries, but contractualism as well. We are, it appears, drawn back to the nagging question of whether and how things nonhuman may matter morally. For, Carruthers conclusion is disallowed. That the alternative rights theory offers novel yet satisfactory means by which to account for moral motivation and knowledge, as well as differences in moral respect due morally relevant beings, is explored. That the theory avoids the troublesome pitfalls of intuitionism and supervenience further secures its frontrunning position--which, again, begins to indicate that and how more than solely humans are of moral relevance. (shrink)