Philosophical Quarterly 63 (253):660-682 (2013)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
In this article, I present two objections against the view that aesthetic judgements – that is, judgemental ascriptions of aesthetic qualities like elegance or harmony – are justified non‐inferentially. The first is that this view cannot make sense of our practice to support our aesthetic judgements by reference to lower‐level features of the objects concerned. The second objection maintains that non‐inferentialism about the justification of aesthetic judgements cannot explain why our aesthetic interest in artworks and other objects is limited to only some of their lower‐level features that realise their higher‐level aesthetic qualities. Although my concern with the view that aesthetic judgements are subject to non‐inferential justification is very general, my discussion is primarily structured around Sibley's well‐developed and influential version of this view.
|
Keywords | aesthetic judgement non-inferentialism inferentialism justification reasons criticism aesthetic experience aesthetic perception Sibley |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1111/1467-9213.12063 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Aesthetic Principles.Oliver Conolly & Bashshar Haydar - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):114-125.
Citations of this work BETA
Reasoned and Unreasoned Judgement: On Inference, Acquaintance and Aesthetic Normativity.Dan Cavedon-Taylor - 2017 - British Journal of Aesthetics 57 (1):1-17.
View all 7 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-09-14
Total views
488 ( #18,179 of 2,499,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #29,280 of 2,499,037 )
2013-09-14
Total views
488 ( #18,179 of 2,499,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #29,280 of 2,499,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads