Reflection

The other day me and my friend was driving up route two and the view was beautiful. We pulled up to that hotel that looks over so you can have a better view and we were in awe. The sun was hitting the mountains perfectly and the sky was orange my friend said it took her breath away. Then I started to think about what we spoke about in class, and how we are "supposed" to appreciate nature. Neither my friend nor I knew anything about why everything looked so nice the way that it did and yet we still embraced it. Were we not suppose to? According to Carlson we weren't supposed to, but then I thought about what Malcolm Budd argued, it isn't completely about what is known. Nature should have the ability to be interpreted freely with or without knowledge. Even though that can help the situation it is not necessarily needed.

Nature

In class this week talking about the appreciation of nature was very interesting. It had opened my eyes up to the fact that without knowledge in the least bit it would be rather hard to fully appreciate nature. However, that knowledge doesn't change the opinions and reactions that some people have towards nature. There can be appreciation without knowledge to a certain extent. A person has to know something about what they are appreciating in order to give it correct appreciation because aesthetic appreciation is different between nature and art.