Abstract

I begin by demonstrating the inadequacy of the idea that the aesthetic appreciation of nature should be understood as the appreciation of nature as if it were art. This leads to a consideration of three theses: from the aesthetic point of view natural items should be appreciated under concepts of the natural things or phenomena they are, what aesthetic properties a natural item really possesses is determined by the right categories of nature to experience the item as falling under, and the natural world untouched by humanity is essentially aesthetically good. I indicate an unclarity in and identify difficulties facing . I distinguish various versions of , reject certain of these, and fault a number of arguments in support of . I conclude that the idea of the aesthetic value of a natural item is such that it endows the aesthetic appreciation of nature with a freedom and relativity denied to the appreciation of art and renders problematic