Graduate studies at Western
British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):289-295 (2005)
|Abstract||Irreversible generalism, the view that reasons given for the evaluation of art are general and do not admit of exceptions, is defended from the criticisms levelled against it by George Dickie in ‘Reading Sibley’. The authors' view that Frank Sibley adhered to a form of reversible generalism, the view that reasons given for the evaluation of art are general but can sometimes become reasons to disvalue artworks, according to which there a criterion for distinguishing valenced from neutral aesthetic properties, is also defended.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Shelley (2002). The Character and Role of Principles in the Evaluation of Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (1):37-51.
James Shelley (2004). Hume's Principles of Taste: A Reply to Dickie. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (1):84-89.
Pekka Väyrynen (2004). Particularism and Default Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):53-79.
Jane Singleton (2004). Neither Generalism nor Particularism: Ethical Correctness is Located in General Ethical Theories. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (2):155-175.
Pekka Väyrynen (2006). Moral Generalism: Enjoy in Moderation. Ethics 116 (4):707-741.
Manuel Hernández-Iglesias (2006). Generalism Without Foundations. Acta Analytica 21 (2):71-86.
Anna Bergqvist (2010). Why Sibley is Not a Generalist After All. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):1-14.
George Dickie (2004). Reading Sibley. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (4):408-412.
Vojko Strahovnik (2004). The Riddle of Aesthetic Principles. Acta Analytica 19 (33):189-208.
Oliver Conolly & Bashshar Haydar (2003). Aesthetic Principles. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):114-125.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,372 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?