Skip to content
Skip to main content

About this free course

Share this free course

Exploring philosophy: faking nature
Exploring philosophy: faking nature

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

2 Elliot: Part III

The argument in Part III of Elliot’s paper is elusive. Elliot considers an objection to his view: namely, that nature and art are not analogous. This lack of analogy between the two is that ‘the judgemental element in aesthetic evaluation serves to differentiate it from environmental evaluation’ (p. 90). That is, in the case of art, originals are valued over copies not because of the way they look, or how they make you feel, but because of judgements about how ‘good’ they are. By contrast, the environment is valued principally because of the way it looks or the way it makes you feel. Therefore, the attitude to fakes and forgeries can’t be generalised from art to nature. Elliot does not deny there are differences, but he argues that judgements, understanding and appreciation do play a role in how the natural environment is valued and perceived. Hence, in this crucial respect, art and nature are analogous.

Activity 1

Timing: Spend around 20 minutes on this activity.

Now read Part III of Elliot’s article [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)]   and answer the following question.

According to Elliot, Val Routley and Holmes Rolson believe that some people are better able to appreciate the natural world than others. Why is this?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

A number of issues are mentioned, but the reason is one of understanding. People who understand ‘the complexity, diversity, and integration of the natural world’ (p. 91) are in a better position to appreciate it.