De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross‐cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment. (1st August 2018)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross‐cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment. (1st August 2018)
- Main Title:
- De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross‐cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
- Authors:
- Cova, Florian
Olivola, Christopher Y.
Machery, Edouard
Stich, Stephen
Rose, David
Alai, Mario
Angelucci, Adriano
Berniūnas, Renatas
Buchtel, Emma E.
Chatterjee, Amita
Cheon, Hyundeuk
Cho, In‐Rae
Cohnitz, Daniel
Dranseika, Vilius
Lagos, Ángeles E.
Ghadakpour, Laleh
Grinberg, Maurice
Hannikainen, Ivar
Hashimoto, Takaaki
Horowitz, Amir
Hristova, Evgeniya
Jraissati, Yasmina
Kadreva, Veselina
Karasawa, Kaori
Kim, Hackjin
Kim, Yeonjeong
Lee, Minwoo
Mauro, Carlos
Mizumoto, Masaharu
Moruzzi, Sebastiano
Ornelas, Jorge
Osimani, Barbara
Romero, Carlos
Rosas, Alejandro
Sangoi, Massimo
Sereni, Andrea
Songhorian, Sarah
Sousa, Paulo
Struchiner, Noel
Tripodi, Vera
Usui, Naoki
del Mercado, Alejandro V.
Volpe, Giorgio
Vosgerichian, Hrag A.
Zhang, Xueyi
Zhu, Jing
… (more) - Abstract:
- Abstract : Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross‐cultural study with over 2, 000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.
- Is Part Of:
- Mind & language. Volume 34:Number 3(2019:Jun.)
- Journal:
- Mind & language
- Issue:
- Volume 34:Number 3(2019:Jun.)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 34, Issue 3 (2019)
- Year:
- 2019
- Volume:
- 34
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2019-0034-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- 317
- Page End:
- 338
- Publication Date:
- 2018-08-01
- Subjects:
- aesthetic judgment -- aesthetic realism -- cross‐cultural -- experimental philosophy
Psycholinguistics -- Periodicals
Thought and thinking -- Periodicals
Language and languages -- Philosophy -- Periodicals
153.42 - Journal URLs:
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0017 ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1111/mila.12210 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0268-1064
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 5775.526400
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 10866.xml