Journal of the History of Philosophy 40 (1):67-87 (2002)
Authors | |
Abstract |
British writers of the eighteenth century such as Shaftesbury and Hutcheson are widely thought to have used the notion of disinterestedness to distinguish an aesthetic mode of perception from all other kinds. This historical view originates in the work of Jerome Stolnitz. Through a re-examination of the texts cited by Stolnitz, I argue that none of the writers in question possessed the notion of disinterestedness that has been used in later aesthetic theory, but only the ordinary, non-technical concept, and that they did not use this notion to define a specifically aesthetic mode of perception or a specifically aesthetic mode of anything else. The nearest thing that they had to the Stolnitzian conception of “the aesthetic” was their conception of taste, which differs from the former in some essential respects.
|
Keywords | Addison Burke Hutcheson Alison Shaftesbury Stolnitz |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1353/hph.2002.0017 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
Shaftesbury on Life as a Work of Art.Michael B. Gill - 2018 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (6):1110-1131.
The Passions and Disinterest: From Kantian Free Play to Creative Determination by Power, Via Schiller and Nietzsche.Eli I. Lichtenstein - 2019 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 6:249-279.
Sensory Force, Sublime Impact, and Beautiful Form.Eli I. Lichtenstein - 2019 - British Journal of Aesthetics 59 (4):449-464.
View all 12 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
807 ( #8,989 of 2,518,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #37,696 of 2,518,720 )
2009-01-28
Total views
807 ( #8,989 of 2,518,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #37,696 of 2,518,720 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads