ABSTRACT
In ethics, ‘actualism’ has been used for the view that whether we ought to do X depends on what would happen if we did it, while possibilism tells us to do whatever action is best. Suppose X would be best but only if we also did Y, which we shall not in fact do (whether or not we ought to): then possibilism says Do X, while actualism says Don’t do X. F.Jackson and R.Pargetter, ‘Oughts, options and actualism’, Philosophical Review, 1986
(reprinted in P.Pettit (ed.), Consequentialism, Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1993). (Ethical sense.)
M.J.Loux (ed.), The Possible and the Actual, Oxford UP, 1979. (See its index.) A.McMichael, ‘A problem for actualism about possible worlds’, Philosophical Review,
1983. (See first two sections for relations between actualism and possibilism, with references.)
E.Prior, Dispositions, Aberdeen UP, 1985. (Chapter 2 discusses different versions of actualism.)
. Also called philosophy of art. Roughly, that branch of philosophy concerned with the creation, value and experience of art and the analysis and solution of problems relating to these. The primary topic is the appreciation of art, and major problems centre on what makes something a work of art. Must it exhibit certain formal e.g. geometrical, properties (formalism), or express certain emotions, attitudes, etc. (expressionism), or do other things? What in fact is the role of pleasure and emotion, and are special types of them involved? Is there a special kind of value involved? Does the work of art embody special properties, like beauty, sublimity, prettiness, and if so, how are these related to its other
properties? How relevant are the object’s function, the context of production and the artist’s intentions? Does it matter how a work was produced, whether difficulties had to be overcome, and whether it was a forgery? These latter questions, involving the artist, are balanced by questions about the appreciation of beauty, and other qualities, in nature, and how this relates to appreciation of art.
