There is this idea that languages can be judged and valued - take the very stereotypical image of the proud French person praising their own language's beauty and warmth while explaining that English is an impure, soulless and emotionless tongue with "stolen" vocabulary. Is the idea that languages can be judged and praised/scorned (sort of like works of art) rooted in a theory of linguistic aesthetics? Has such a theory ever been articulated? More to the point, are there any general justifications for such views, or are words really just words?
While on holiday in Crete, myself and my friends Michael and Daniel began to admire the sparse mountainous landscape. We all agreed that it was aesthetically pleasing, but we all had different opinions concerning the degree of its aesthetic beauty. Michael suggested that the landscape was inferior to a forested mountain-range covered in thick pine forests. Daniel argued that Michael was incorrect because the Cretan landscape had a sparse beauty which was very appealing. He compared the heavily forested landscape of Michael's comparison to a ring with an enormous gaudy diamond, while the Cretan landscape had the minimalist, simplistic beauty of a ring with a smaller but more precious gem. I argued that Michael was mistaken in making this comparison to begin with. The Cretan landscape should not be compared to a landscape from a more temperate region of the world, because they were fundamentally different types of landscape. It is possible to compare the work of a oil-paints artist with those of another oil...
I have been working on a theory of aesthetics and wished to have the input of someone more well versed in the philosophical literature. I have mostly centered upon music, as in: what makes one form of music, e.g. Classical, superior than another, e.g. Pop? Using Nietzsche's idea of genealogy, I determined that Rock and Roll could never be truly great art because of its development from slavery, much as Nietzsche attacked the Christian religion due to its association as a slave religion.
The main quality that defines great art, I argue, is nobility. And this is a quality which servitude, or a spirit of art arising from servitude, cannot comprehend.
Also, would it be possible to recommend reading that might aid me? Currently I am reading Hegel's Introductory Lectures in Aesthetics, and Kant's Critique of Judgment.
Are there any extensive philosophical examinations of a link between aesthetics and ethics? I had heard that Nietzsche and Rousseau, for example, argued that the two were fundamentally linked. Specifically, I am curious as to whether any philosophers have advanced the position that ethics and morality are sub-fields of aesthetics (an "Aesthetics of Human Behavior", if you will).
I was just looking out my window to admire the loveliness of the mountains and trees.
It makes me think does the natural world conform to any known aesthetic principles of color, balance, texture, harmony, etc? Or is nature lovely for more mysterious reasons?
And supposing it did conform to aesthetic principles are those principles actually derived from nature?...For instance the colors white and blue often go together well and I wonder if this is a good combination because it reminds one of the sky or if the sky just happens to use a good color scheme of blue and white.
I am thinking right now, how before a storm, the clouds turn an ominous black, and that does seem awfully symbolic (and aesthetically logical) to my primitive and pre-philosophical mind. It makes me wander if there are other less obvious things like this that I haven't noticed or I don't have the artistic sophistication to see.
Have any 19th century romantic philosophers (or any other philosphers for that matter) had anything...