Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Arthur C. Danto (1999). Indiscernibility and Perception: A Reply to Joseph Margolis. British Journal of Aesthetics 39 (4):321-329.
Similar books and articles
Joseph Margolis advances a view which he purports to be relativist in both the book and the article “The Truth About Relativism”. He develops this view in opposition to what he calls “relationalism”. Relationalism, however, is very much like what has traditionally been called “relativism”. Thus, in developing his view, Margolis distances himself from relativism as traditionally understood. Given this, the present article aims to determine the following: a) whether and how Margolis’ position is a relativist position; and b) whether Margolis’ position is substantially different from the relationalist view from which he purports to depart. I argue that Margolis’ position is only relativist in part and that the relativistic aspect of his theory is essentially the relationalist position he is determined to avoid.
No categories
No categories
The definition of the human -- Perceiving paintings as paintings I -- Perceiving paintings as paintings II -- "One and only one correct interpretation" -- Toward a phenomenology of painting and literature -- "Seeing-in," "make-believe," transfiguration" : the perception of pictorial representation -- Beauty and truth and the passing of transcendental philosophy.
Discussion of Arthur C. Danto, Indiscernibility and perception: A reply to Joseph Margolis
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

