|
|
| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Example from Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Posted by: | Andre Hopper |
| Date/Time: | 2011/10/12 14:34:17 |
| I agree, and you do too, with what you call Gablik's "general point", i.e. that "certain developments in social history seem to share the same sort of qualitative progression of hierarchical relation". Where we may differ is how this general point is used in her book: I reckon that her insightful comments on the examples of art she discusses are not shown to require, to depend on, to be directly linkeds to this general point. Take Piaget's discussion of children's understanding of motion in The Child's Representation of the World + Physical Causality book: his analysis invokes Aristotle's account of anti-peristasis to argue that children use a comparable version ?thus a direct link between his evidence and A's theory. But with Gablik, there is no direct link between her "general point" and the "evidence" [examples of art] she reviews; at least not as far as I understand her. |