FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W56749096> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W56749096 endingPage "69" @default.
• W56749096 startingPage "69" @default.
• W56749096 abstract "HUME THE AESTHETIC THEORIST has always been overshadowed by Hume epistemolo- gist, metaphysician, and moral theorist. late even Hume's political theory has come in for detailed attention. The same cannot be said for his aesthetic theory, though have been a few incisive articles appearing on it in last twenty years.' In present essay I propose to look closely at some of central tenets of Hume's aesthetic theory, especially as it appears in his superb essay Of Standard of Taste. I will argue that some of his most important claims have been misunderstood, and that significance of his focal parable, discovery of the key with leathern thong, has been lost. Hume's aesthetic theory rests upon idea that are rules or principles of taste, and that aesthetic rationality consists in discovering and applying these rules, especially in cases where people dispute about aes- thetic value of an object. This idea may seem self-evident, yet it was denied by no less a personage than Kant.2 I conclude paper with a comparison of merits of Humean and Kantian models of aesthetic rationality. Of Standard of Taste, it will be re- called, focuses on question of whether aesthetic disagreements can be rationally re- solved. Hume grants at outset that common sense seems to hold that they cannot be, given popular maxim there is no disputing about taste. But, he continues (with brilliant in- sight), common sense also seems to hold contradictory position, since anyone who assert an equality of genius and ele- gance between Ogilby and Milton, or Bunyan and Addison, would be thought to defend no less an extravagance, than if he had maintained STEVEN SVERDLIK is assistant professor of philoso- phy at Southern Methodist University. a mole-hill to be as high as Teneriffe, or a pond as extensive as ocean (p. 7).3 That is, common sense recognizes that some aesthetic judgments, at least, are as clearly false or unjustifiable as certain empirical statements. course yoking of Bunyan to Addison is in retrospect unfortunate, given later rise in Bunyan's critical reputation. But general point about comparability of some aesthetic judgments to factual statements can be made using different examples. What Hume next endeavors to do in essay is to show how it is possible that aesthetic judgements can have this sort of objectivity. Moreover, he attempts to do this while granting all along that beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in mind which contemplates them (p. 6, cf. 11). In other words, Hume attempts to show that it is possible rationally to resolve a dispute about aesthetic value of an object without assuming that aesthetic value is a property of object itself. As is well known, Hume's solution is a sort of observer theory of taste or evalua- tion in which correct or rational position in a dispute is identified with evaluation that an ideal critic would make under ideal conditions.4" @default.
• W56749096 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W56749096 creator A5077590021 @default.
• W56749096 date "1986-01-01" @default.
• W56749096 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W56749096 title "Hume's Key and Aesthetic Rationality" @default.
• W56749096 cites W2318884539 @default.
• W56749096 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/430467" @default.
• W56749096 hasPublicationYear "1986" @default.
• W56749096 type Work @default.
• W56749096 sameAs 56749096 @default.
• W56749096 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W56749096 countsByYear W567490962014 @default.
• W56749096 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W56749096 hasAuthorship W56749096A5077590021 @default.
• W56749096 hasBestOaLocation W567490962 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C201717286 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C26517878 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W56749096 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C107038049 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C111472728 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C138885662 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C142362112 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C201717286 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C26517878 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C38652104 @default.
• W56749096 hasConceptScore W56749096C41008148 @default.
• W56749096 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W56749096 hasLocation W567490961 @default.
• W56749096 hasLocation W567490962 @default.
• W56749096 hasOpenAccess W56749096 @default.
• W56749096 hasPrimaryLocation W567490961 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2072179540 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2281487930 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2375963379 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2604485743 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2794725409 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W3131203897 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W3175735988 @default.
• W56749096 hasRelatedWork W4210567961 @default.
• W56749096 hasVolume "45" @default.
• W56749096 isParatext "false" @default.
• W56749096 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W56749096 magId "56749096" @default.
• W56749096 workType "article" @default.