





































isparchitecture.com

Architectural writing that engages philosophy 
has been around for decades. Philosophical writing 
with reference to architecture has been around 
for centuries. But almost none of  it has sustained 
a conversation. It is as though each outing 
might be the last. Nothing seems to build—one 
thought upon another. Too often, when those 
from the architectural side of  the fence reference 
philosophy in their work, it appears they are doing 
so ornamentally—to render the work with the 
appearance of  higher order wisdom derived from 
analytic or continental or environmental or Eastern 
philosophy, yet without enduring the painstaking 
work of  having done so. Too often, when those 
from the philosophical side of  the fence reference 
architecture, their stylistic or ideological prejudices 
are all too apparent, and their understanding of  the 
workings of  the world of  architectural production 
are too naïve to be persuasive. And yet—the 
built environment is too important a force in the 
world for philosophers to neglect in their work of  
questioning, criticizing and systematizing who we 
are, what we know, what is important, and all the rest 
of  the fields of  inquiry under their roof. And by the 
same token, philosophy is too important a practice 
for architects to ignore their efforts to understand 
the world they account for. The deficiencies have 
themselves created a need and desire for a field 
of  inquiry that incorporates the expertise of  both 
architecture and philosophy. Sustaining the inquiry 
and securing the field, is achieved with a journal. 

Until a budding discipline has a journal to call 
its own, it cannot mature because it has no regular 

The purpose 
of Architecture 

Philosophy is 
to provide the 

platform to 
allow the field’s 

self-identification 
process to begin, 

establish the 
field’s standards, 

and identify the 
most pertinent 

topics

“

”

WHY ARCHITECTURE PHILOSOPHY?

TOM SPECTOR, CAROLYN FAHEY, & STEFAN KOLLER



AP . vol 1 . No 1 . 2014

6

Ed
it

or
ia

l

home within which to find its center, explore its boundaries, quantify 
progress, and evaluate contributions. There is no way of  knowing whether 
an area of  inquiry has already been dealt with by others, whether it may 
prove fertile, and standards for inquiry are left entirely undefined. These 
criteria are currently lacking in writing at the junction of  architecture and 
philosophy. The purpose of  Architecture Philosophy, therefore, is to provide 
the platform to allow the field’s self-identification process to begin, 
establish the field’s standards, and identify the most pertinent topics. 

The initial issues will explore the boundaries of  writing on architecture 
philosophy and, in the process, begin to show what the key questions, 
positions, and disagreements amongst architecture philosophers are. 
Often times, this diversity is apparent in their formal disciplinary training, 
whether of  post-structuralist architecture or analytic philosophy or 
otherwise. As editors, we are not interested in homogenizing the thinking 
represented in the nascent field, but rather in engendering genuine debate. 
At times the voices will be disparate, resonating as a cacophony of  debate, 
but there are already apparent moments of  commonality. The prospect of  
meaningful agreement creates a worthwhile pursuit. 

The desired tone of  the essays is to aim for accessibility, but at a level 
that can presume familiarity with the basics of  philosophy and with the 
main currents in recent architectural thought. The method of  research 
sought is of  highly rationalized and evidenced arguments, in which 
poetics are inadequate, authoritarian claims indefensible, and ungrounded 
abstractions immobile. Most of  the writing presented in this inaugural 
issue is drawn from essays presented at the 2012 ISPA conference—
Ethics and Aesthetics in Architecture—held at Newcastle University.1 The 
original call for papers is here:

The subject of  aesthetics is often taken as dealing with questions of  mere beauty, 
where the word ‘aesthetic’ is colloquially interchangeable with beauty and liking. 
Someone might, for instance, explain their liking the look of  a particular 
object on the basis of  its ‘aesthetics’. Interestingly, even within the specialized 
architecture discourse, the aesthetic is largely discussed on the basis of  an object’s 
appearance. Yet, the aesthetic is not limited and should not be limited merely to 
the way things look. Any philosophically informed aesthetician will contest this 
limited view, saying something along the lines of  ‘the aesthetic is everything’. 
The aim of  this conference is therefore in part to address this discursive limitation 
in architecture and related subjects by broadening the aesthetic discourse beyond 
questions relating to purely visual phenomena in order to include those derived 
from all facets of  human experience. In taking on the aesthetic in a manner that 
pushes its considerations beyond the realm of  mere beauty, questions of  ethics 



7

isparchitecture.com

often arise. Indeed Wittgenstein famously asserted 
that, “ethics and aesthetics are one and the same”.2 
Questions as to why, for instance a building’s form takes 
the shape it does, not only raises the more conventional 
aesthetic questions but also questions about what 
purpose or meaning the building serves beyond purely 
visual stimulation. Does the form for instance relate 
somehow to a social ideal or economic ideal? And if  
so, is this ideal something that its inhabitants subscribe 
to or are even aware of ? In an effort to draw thinkers’ 
attention to the ethical role architecture plays as well 
as the ethical function architects play, the second part 
of  this conference call addresses this often overlooked 
dimension of  architecture.3

The intent in raising such questions is not merely 
to broaden architects’ discourse to meaningfully 
include ethical considerations, but also equally 
as much to broaden the philosophical discourse 
which has done little to investigate the very 
same philosophical questions architects do. The 
hope with bringing the two disciplines together 
is to propel the broader discourse beyond the 
limitations of  a purely visual understanding of  
architecture and its aesthetics. 

The essays in this inaugural issue move beyond 
those limitations by drawing on a diverse range 
of  approaches. David Leatherbarrow’s “Sharing 
Sense” employs aesthetic readings of  architecture to 
illuminate ethical problems. Paul Guyer’s “Pluralism 
and Monism” traces a strand in the philosophical 
genealogy from Kant to Ruskin, establishing 
what the cognitivist approach to understanding 
architecture is and how this position is situated firmly 
within both ethics and aesthetics. Emmanuel Petit’s 
essay “Architecture of  Ethics” looks at the ethical 
journey of  the architect Stanley Tigerman through 
his architectural practice in Chicago. Rafeal De 
Clercq’s essay “Building Plans as Natural Symbols” 
investigates how the architectural plan may be 
interpreted and understood in terms of  symbology. 
Nathaniel Coleman’s “Is Beauty Still Relevant?” is a 

As editors, 
we are not 

interested in 
homogenizing 

the thinking 
represented 

in the nascent 
field, but rather 

in engendering 
genuine debate

“

”



AP . vol 1 . No 1 . 2014

8

Ed
it

or
ia

l

fine-grained analysis of  an aspect of  ancient Greek aesthetics applied to 
contemporary artistic problems, which seeks to examine whether and how 
ethics and aesthetics can be understood in tandem. Rick Fox’s “A New 
Interpretative Taxonomy” is a textbook example of  epistemic inquiry, 
which delineates common positions within popular architecture discourse: 
the singularist, constructivist, and contextualist. 

To further explore the journal’s limits we include an interview with 
Andrew Ballantyne, who has made many of  first successful forays into 
the interdisciplinary territory of  architecture and philosophy, as well 
as an interview with Chicago-based architect Stanley Tigerman, and a 
book review. In later issues, we hope to encourage more dialogue with 
our readers in the form of  responses to published essays, book reviews, 
roundtables, etc. Occasional themed issues are also anticipated. The 
society’s international events will continue to supply the journal with 
papers, but we also maintain an open submission. Submission details and 
guidelines can be found at isparchitecture.com or in the back of  this issue. 

Endnotes
1. “Ethics and Aesthetics Conference Website.” International Society for the 
Philosophy of  Architecture, 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 30 May 2014. <ispaconference.
wordpress.com>.
2. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, §6.421.
3. Fahey, Carolyn. “2012 Conference: Call for Papers.” International Society 
for the Philosophy of  Architecture, 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2014. 
<isparchitecture.com>.


