Kant's argument from enantiomorphs to space and the indispensibility argument

¶ … philosophers Kant and Nerlich have brought regarding the existence of space. The main concept is that of enantiomorphism. We will try to establish whether the generalised indispensability argument plays a fundamental role as far as the effectiveness of the theory in question is concerned.

We can very well begin by trying to explain what an indispensability argument is. Generally speaking, it is an argument which serves the purpose of establishing the truth value of a claim- based upon the indispensability of the claim under analysis for certain purposes. An example often quote din order to illustrate the issue is represented by explanation: if we need an explanation for something (hence explanation becomes the purpose), then we can speak about an explanatory indispensability argument. Now, the issue that Kant and Nerlich focus upon is represented by the enantiomorphic objects. Kant argues that for an object to be an enantiomorph, it needs the counterpart. Nerlich argues the contrary. The condition of enatiomorph depends on the characteristics of the space which contains it, such as orientability and dimensionality. In addition he claims that the topological space must have shape, just like a coloured object must have a certain colour, regardless of what it is. But this view of space differs from the Kantian one in which the relations between objects are a decisive factor when it comes to establishing their characteristics (they are not intrinsic).

Bearing this in mind, we could state that the general indispensability argument is more relevant in Kant's case, in the sense that it helps support the paradigm through which he demonstrates his thesis. As far as Nerlich is concerned we might state that his perspective too depends on the general indispensability arguments, even if its role is smaller compared to Kant's case.

2. In the following lines we will be giving an outline of Plato's conception regarding Forms. In addition, we will discuss the significance and effectiveness of the Third-Man argument against Plato's theory of Forms.

Through his theory of the Forms, known also as the theory of ideas, Plato tries to define reality by closely connecting the concept with the human mechanisms and instruments of perception. He states that through sensation, the individual can get to know reality. Under these circumstances, there are on the one hand the ideas (when we speak about non-material abstract entities) and on the other hand, the material world which is subject to change. From these two types of reality the most significant one is represented by the world of ideas (or Forms). It is only through the use of the Forms that we can reach the truth and achieve genuine knowledge. As far as the issue of universals is concerned, Plato stated that the Forms were indeed singular things. However, they were able to cause various representations of themselves in other particular distinct objects. In addition, a form is both atemporal, aspatial and also extra-mental. It represents a sort of "blueprint" of perfection, being perfect themselves.

The Third Man Argument, has the purpose of demonstrating that the principles on which the Theory of the Forms is based are contradictory. The main fallacy is believed to derive from the existence of a plurality of Forms. For example if a man is a man because he partakes in the form of man, then a further third form ought to exist in order to explain the process through which both the form and the man are in the end the same thing, that is, man. If the Forms exist in a universe which is not accessible to the human comprehension, then the entire argument becomes useless. If the contrary is valid, then the argument manages to diminish the efficiency of the Forms theory, especially if we bear in mind the rules of uniqueness and purity.

3. In the following lines we will discuss the concepts of necessity and possibility as they arise in Plato and in the Duns Scotus/Leibniz possible world view. We can begin by presenting the conception of each of the philosophers and then continue with a comparison.

When thinking of Plato and his conception of the world, one of the things which first come to mind is represented by the allegory of the cave. The best possible world view can be achieved only outside the cave, where the sun shades light upon all the things, providing the intellect with the possibility of acquiring more information and therefore getting closer to the truth and profound knowledge. Inside the cave, the darkness and the shadows created by the fire can only feed us with illusion. But while the intellect can be used as an instrument for knowledge, is it really possible to understand reality as Form or as manifestation of various Forms? Does the possibility of one Form actually imply the necessity of the existence of another one?

Duns Scotus argues that there is no distinction between essence and existence and that the same substance can have more than one substantial form. Under these circumstances, the human soul, separated from the body, an acquire knowledge of the spiritual in an intuitive manner. Therefore we could conclude that the concept of possibility is more powerful than the one of necessity. Notwithstanding the difficulty of the theory, we could also state that the concepts support each other.

4. The next question that we will try to answer refers to the temporal dimensions. Is there really what we call past and future or are we living an eternal present?

This has been a question that numerous philosophers have tried to answer. It is clear that we are living in the profane time, which is not eternal and within which we can go in one direction only, towards our death. While the sacred time allows for repetitions and loops as well as true suspensions of the moment, the profane time is speedily going ahead. Naturally one can not conceive time outside the being. After all, in the absence of the being, time would not make a lot of sense. It is safe to say that we are not identical to ourselves throughout time. Our evolution which coincides with the temporal one, takes us towards a direction of development. This development divides time into today, tomorrow and yesterday and us into the person we are today, the one who we were yesterday and the possible person which we may be tomorrow. But since essentially the core of our being remains the same, can we really argue that time can actually be divided like this?

And what about the relation which exists between time and space? How does the temporal division impact the conception of space? Moving deeper into the analysis, we wonder if time really exists, being more than an instrument which we use in order to better perceive space and organize ourselves and our movements within in a better manner?

Judging things from an eternalist perspective, the past and the future become irrelevant. In other words, the eternal "future" becomes the eternal today. The past does not exist, because there is no longer an interval between it and the present. The eternal existence of something maintains it in the magic illo tempore thus annulling the division into this profane temporal triad.

5. Another interesting question which comes to mind refers to the existence of free will? Does it really exist or can we only conceive it at theoretical level?

Free will is the capacity of man to act according to his inner desires and transform the world around him according to his own necessities. Under these circumstances it can be stated that free will demonstrates not only the strength of a man's reason, but also the fact that pure freedom can exist. Although the perspective is enthusiast, when it comes to comparing it to the deterministic view things become problematic. If everything has had a cause ever since the beginning of time, can man escape from this causal chain and impose his own will independently of the constrictions which surround him? Are we not ourselves the result of actions, events and education which are also a result of another process and so on and so forth? Are we not the very proof of determinism? Or can we distinguish between determinism and predeterminism? If such be the case then free will is incompatible with predeterminism but compatible with a sort of controlled determinism on the individual's behalf regarding not only the world which surrounds him, but also his own needs, desires and beliefs which guide him in the universe. but, can will be viewed just as another element within the causal chain? This perspective surely changes things.

The truth is that we are influenced in our decisions by things which are external to us. Not only are we influenced by our interests, but our interests are influenced by things and events which fall outside our control. Under these circumstances the issue of pure free will which imposes itself upon the individual, pushing him to act freely shows itself in all of its complexity.

6. Now we will try to explain the Problem of Indiscernible Counterparts posed by Andy Warhol's "Brillo Boxes" (1964). What does this problem have to do with the question "What is art?" In addition we will try to understand how does Danto's appeal to "the art world" address this problem?

The Brillo Boxes are a piece of art which Warhol created in the sixties as part of his attempt to make a point about industrialization, the role of art in everyday life and the mechanisms through which art is rendered exactly what it is. Basically he created dozens of this type of boxes. Afterwards he created wooden replicas of the original pieces, painting them and silkscreening the images and the commercial texts. The final result had the second round of creations virtually indistinguishable from the first round ones. The question which Warhol was putting to people and society in general was: What is the difference between the Brillo boxes, the ordinary ones and the Brillo boxes which he made? Why was one a work of art while the other was not?

The differences between the real boxes and the ones created by the artist were so small that they could not justify the different perception which occurred. Danto had argued that art objects derive their quality from the fact that they differ so much from things which we associate with every day life, or in other words, with the common things. But Warhol demonstrated just the opposite. It is therefore the interpretation that people give to an object that which makes it art or not. Under these circumstances the very process of creation is to be viewed from another perspective, if the condition of art is no longer decided a priori.

7. Taking into account Tolstoy's theory, we will now try to understand how art succeeds to "infect" its audience. In addition we will try to understand what are the features that make a work of art more infectious, why does Tolstoy think that it is inartistic to deliberately produce certain effects in an audience. Last but not least we will try to answer what does a genuine artwork do if not produce its effects deliberately?

According to the Russian author, while trying to define art one must keep away from concepts such as beauty, truth or goodness, just like other authors, artists and philosophers have done in the past and concentrate upon other more relevant aspects. These relevant aspects had at their core the emotional impact that art could have upon the audience. Art installs an emotional link between the viewer and the art object. The object therefore infects the viewer. Since the audience is fully contaminated, then it could be stated that art unites people through this type of communication process. But is there such a thing as good art and bad art?

The author declares that this type of differentiation is useless since people are not actually able to do it. The only thing that matters is the fact that art infects the audiences. The more powerful the infection, the stronger the value and the character of the art piece involved. Art becomes more infectious if it manages to deal with issues which are sensitive and more likely to touch people in their soft spots, achieving a relevant effect.

To produce positive effects such as a feeling of brotherhood is artistically good. Producing effects which are not Christian on the other hand is something which belongs to bad art. The answer to the last question is more than obvious. While the interpretation of a piece of art depends on the capacities of the viewer and his momentary interests, the artist's goal when creating must be clear.

8. Now we will explain why Hume thinks there is a standard of taste as opposed to wholesale relativism. Other questions we will answer are: What is the standard according to Hume? What does this standard have to do with human nature? It is plausible that there is such a standard? Why or why not?

Hume believes that when a piece of art is created, its creator had a very definite purpose on his mind. Yes, there can exist art which is produced only because of the pleasure which the creation act provides, but this case is so limited that it can not be taken into consideration when making a deeper analysis regarding the work of art. The main issue under discussion is represented by beauty. According to the philosopher beauty is not an intrinsic characteristic. In other words, beauty is not a property which can be associated directly with things. However, the manner in which people perceive things is not the same for everybody. Some people have more developed capacities to understand and value things than others. What happens under these circumstances to the value of the art work? Apparently it depends upon the standards of evaluation which people have.

But these standards are believed to be sentiments. Consequently the implications that being so subjective, they are also distant from the truth. On the one hand the standard is closely connected to human nature. On the other hand, considering all the differences which can be registered between people, it is difficult to render this standard universal and profoundly humane. However we must underline that the subjectivism which Hume underlines in his beliefs is not one which favor relativism. Therefore from a certain point-of-view it is difficult to accept the existence of such a standard.