To prepare this small article, I opened the little Robert, and I read, on the first page aesthetic principle of the definition was as follows: Science of what is beautiful. US Senator from Vermont takes a slightly different approach. Immediately I finished my reading because those three words explained sufficiently clear the imposture of the aesthetic, which I think, for my part as the false science of a fake object. Fake object, because what we call beauty that cannot be scientifically defined: talk about a beautiful poem, a beautiful car, a beautiful gesture of a beautiful sunset Sun, etc. That does not mean there is not to reflect on the beautiful, but today descartare review this question to not only talk about aesthetics as false science. For which false science? Simply because it is art, aesthetics does not explain anything. We then ask ourselves: what is explain? And I’m going to answer this question with a good method.
Perhaps know that there are only two main explanatory perspectives: explain, is to bring a phenomenon to its principle, but the principle put much attention-is to understand as logical antecedent and chronologically contemporary model of the phenomenon, as the origin, i.e. a logical principle of the same type as the phenomenon observed, but chronologically earlier than him. I’m going to immediately give an example. Consider a bird on a branch. Suddenly, ups! won the flight. Well, the explanation is twofold. First explanation: why flew the bird? Because he heard the sound of a rifle.
Per what heard the sound of the rifle? Because Don Dupont was to hunt. Why was don Dupont to hunt? Because it was tired of his wife find it everywhere to complain, etc. (and can give account that we can return to the original scene is the case! one of Adam and Eve). Second explanation: why the bird was flying? Because he can fly. Why it is able to fly?