Dear Lauri,
> When or if "arts are technologies of ethics", it doesn't mean
that
> ethical systems are "derived from art", but that arts are
making ethics
> visible or audible. Just like many technologies are based on quantum
> mechanics taking that science - > technology parallel.
I relied on the other meaning of 'technologies': it could either be
'practical knowledge based on more abstract knowledge' (the way I assume you
use the term), or it could be 'practical knowledge of how to do something'.
So I assumed that you implied that art is used to produce ethics rather than
to convey it.
However, I would still disagree that this is an appropriate definition. Arts
have aesthetic dimension apart from ethic one, which is no less important.
Art gives insights into new meanings (as Pedro implied), and thus provides
opportunities for new rational constructions in scientific knowledge.
Also, your table (http://www.kolumbus.fi/lauri.grohn/yk/text/typology.html)
suggests that moral systems have artefacts such as art, and declined
artefacts such as religions. Indeed, the body of religious practices can to
a large degree be seen as the 'technology of ethics', in your sense. But,
again, this does not capture what religions are for - 'ethic technologies'
in religion are interwoven with 'technologies of the soul', for instance. I
believe you have found a common ground to compare these two, and linking
them to ethics, but there is a risk that you have overlooked important
distinctions between all three.
Best wishes
Pavel
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Feb 16 14:55:52 2006
