Noel Carroll,"On Being Moved by Nature: Between Religion and Natural History" (1993)

• "Being moved by nature" (=BMBN) involves
  • Being emotionally aroused by nature
  • Letting nature put you in an emotional state
• Examples of BMBN
  • Standing under a waterfall and being excited by its grandeur
  • Walking barefoot through the woods and feeling homey-ness
  • Being taken by the grace of deer as they vault over a stream
• BMBN is
  • A common appreciative response to nature
  • More visceral, less intellectual than Carlson's natural history model
    • Carlson seems committed to idea professional knowledge required for (best?) appreciation of nature
  • A non-scientific arousal (even though its emotional component has a cognitive dimension that permits objectivity, this dimension does not involve systematic common sense or scientific knowledge)
    
• Allen Carlson unfairly excludes BMBN as a legitimate way to aes app (=appreciate) nature
• Although BMBN is a less informed, (even) naïve emotional response, it is acceptable one
  • Would Carlson say it wasn't acceptable or would he simply agree that it is naive and claim it shallow appreciation?
• Uninformed emotional arousal possible and acceptable in both art and nature
  • One can appreciate art appropriately and be emotionally aroused w/o knowledge of genre/style/relevant art history (p. 253 original)
  • A legitimate alternative to app response of informed connoisseur
• Examples
• Children can be amused w/o knowing tradition or place among artistic genres of Commedia dell'arte
  • Might Carlson argue that such arousal is appropriate for children, but childish or at least naïve, unsophisticated, shallow for adults? (For example, those of us who know nothing about this genre are bewildered by it, though we can think it looks funny.)
• Can appreciate insult in Duchamp's fountain w/o knowing details of art history
  • But doesn't one have to know something about art history?
• Consider Man Ray's "Gift" (iron with nails on bottom): Can appreciate the dark humor and realize the object is at odds with itself w/o knowing its place in Dada and art history context

• Carroll is a pluralist: More than one appropriate way to app nature (Carlson a monist?)
  • Carlson's naturalist's appreciation of nature is one proper way to appreciate nature, but so is arousal model (even object model can be appropriate sometimes p. 253, original)
    
• BMBN and naturalist's appreciation can come together
  • BMBN can be due to naturalist's knowledge
  • Glaciers see as rivers of ice
  • Pitcher plants being carnivorous
• But BMBN need not be due to naturalist's knowledge

• How Carroll's BMBN solves problem of aesthetic focus w/o relying on natural history
• Rejects Carlson's science by elimination argument for his natural env. model
  • Problem of aes focus: what relevant? What focus on?
  • Unlike in art where have artistic categories, with nature app artistic categories not appropriate
  • So must be natural science categories that allow us to focus
  • What else could do this?
• Carroll says in BMBN aes focus fixed in process of emotional arousal
  • There are natural frames (caves, canyons) and natural saliences (sounds)
  • Given the kinds of beings we are with the senses we have
  • Our attention will be directed to certain things and not others (e.g., sounds of the water)
  • This requires no particular cultural information (and specifically not scientific information)
  • Some emotional arousals bred in the bone and not culturally based
    
• Carroll's BMBN allows for objectivity in aes app of nature (as does Carlson's)
• Carroll thinks all acceptable views about nature app must explain possibility of objectivity
• Carroll thinks judgments of aes app such as the "Tetons are majestic" are objective (and true?)
• Agrees that bringing in science as Carlson does gets you objectivity
• E.g., Whale a clumsy fish or impressive mammal
• But can get objectivity w/o science (w/o seeing nature appreciation as a type of natural history)
• Can reject the view that it is appropriate to appreciate nature any way one wants (subjectivism) even if this appreciation is emotion based
• BMBN can account for appropriateness and objectivity of emotions (257-258 in original)
  • As an emotional state, BMBN is appropriate or not
  • Appropriateness is the truth of emotions
    • Thinking it funny when a dog is hit by a car is an inappropriate emotional response
    • Laughing at Munch's The Scream is an inappropriate emotional response
  • Emotions are cognitive (they are underpinned by beliefs, thoughts and patterns of attention)
• Emotions are directed at objects
  • Some emotions appropriately directed at some objects and others not
• Fear of oncoming tank (appropriate)
• Assuming you believe it is dangerous
• Fear of chicken soup (inappropriate)
  • Unless you believe it is poisoned
• Emotions are appropriate/inappropriate for individuals depending on the individual's beliefs about their objects
• Emotions are objective when the beliefs underlying the emotion are ones reasonable for others to share
  • Objectivity as reasonableness
• Emotions directed at nature can be objective (or not) (p. 258 original)
  • Being excited by the grandeur of something (e.g., Tetons) one believes is of large scale is appropriate
  • If the belief in its large scale is reasonable for others to hold, it is an objective emotional arousal (not subjective, distorted, or wayward)
  • Person who says Tetons are not of a large scale is either
    • Irrational
    • Has wrong comparison class (Tetons are not large scale because they are tiny compared to the Galaxy)
  • Person who says they are large scale but not exciting has inappropriate emotional response
• Thus, Carroll's emotional arousal model (BMBN) can allow for objectivity in aes app of nature as does Carlson's naturalists knowledge model (NEM)
• Consider peson who grew up in the Himalayas and says the Teton's are "paltry" and is not moved by their grandeur


• Carroll thinks one can be appropriately moved by nature even with false beliefs about it
  • Contra Carlson's idea that appro app of nature requires naturalist knowledge of nature
  • Carroll argues that knowledge needn't be relevant for even false belief is okay in aes app
  • Examples
    • Excited by grandeur of size, force, water displaced of a blue whale and believe it is a fish. Not inappropriate
    • Moved by skeleton of T-rex and not know if it is a reptile, bird, or mammal
      • Do these examples involve some scientific (or at least relatively sophisticated common sense) knowledge?
  • Notice that Carroll's examples are ones where the false belief does not influence the aesthetic response
    • When the false belief affects the aes response, it is not clear that the response is appropriate when based on false belief
    • Examples:
      • An awe inspiring rat or a cute woodchuck?
      • An awkward deer or a graceful moose?
      • An splendid moon or an obnoxious satellite dish
  • When a false belief influences an aesthetic judgment (as above) (perhaps so that we would change our aesthetic judgment once made aware of the false belief), then the aesthetic response that involves the false belief is not appropriate (or is problematic or undesireable in some other way)
    
    
• Carroll's response to Carlson's implicit criticism that BMBN is not a deep aesthetic response
• Carlson might say BMBN is not inappropriate, but rather simply a shallow, trivial, mere enjoyment of nature and not the serious, deep appreciation of naturalists (whose appreciation is informed by knowledge)
• Carroll's reply: Depends on what one means by deep
  • If "deep" means objective (that is, not simply enjoying nature whatever way one pleases), then he has shown that BMBN has objectivity and is deep in this sense
  • If "deep" means time/length of appreciation, then perhaps BMBN is less deep in this sense, as naturalist appreciation can go on and on as one learns more--wereas emotional arousal ends relativily quickly
  • If "deep" means intensity of involvement, the BMBN is just as deep, perhaps deeper, than scientific-based app
    
    
• BMBN is not some displaced religious feeling but can be explained naturalistically as built in by natural selection
  • Those who had positive emotional responses to environments that humans did well in (savannahs) prospered' those who didn't and liked dangerous environments (jungles) didn't survive.
  • BMBN is a type of aes response to nature that is "between religion and natural history"