Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Recently we have been discussing the differences between Carlson and Foltz's way of viewing nature appropriately. According to Carlson, knowledge is crucial to the aesthetic appreciation of the natural world. On the other hand, Foltz believes the scientific knowledge of the environment is not absolutely necessary in viewing nature. In my opinion, it Foltz is more right in what he believes. He does not expel the use of scientific knowledge, but he does acknowledge that other forms of appreciation are applicable. This is true when going on vacations, for my instance to Florida over spring break with softball every year. I do not know the history nor the in debt environmental science behind the landscapes that I view, but I feel my general knowledge is sufficient and allows me to experience those landscapes appropriately.