Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):25–54 (2002)
|Abstract||[Richard Glauser] Shaftesbury's theory of aesthetic experience is based on his conception of a natural disposition to apprehend beauty, a real 'form' of things. I examine the implications of the disposition's naturalness. I argue that the disposition is not an extra faculty or a sixth sense, and attempt to situate Shaftesbury's position on this issue between those of Locke and Hutcheson. I argue that the natural disposition is to be perfected in many different ways in order to be exercised in the perception of the different degrees of beauty within Shaftesbury's hierarchy. This leads to the conclusion that the exercise of the disposition depends, from case to case, on many different cognitive and affective conditions, that are realised by the collaborative functionings of our ordinary faculties. Essential to Shaftesbury's conception of aesthetic experience is a disinterested, contemplative love, that causes (or contains) what we may call a 'disinterested pleasure', but also an interested pleasure. I argue that, within any given aesthetic experience, the role of the disinterested pleasure is secondary to that of the disinterested love. However, an important function of the disinterested pleasure is that, in combination with the interested pleasure, it leads one to aspire to pass from the aesthetic experience of lower degrees of beauty to the experience of higher ones in the hierarchy. /// [Anthony Savile] (1) If Shaftesbury is to be seen as the doyen of modern aesthetics, his most valuable legacy to us may not so much be his viewing aesthetic response as a sui generis disinterested delight as his insistence on its turning 'wholly on [experience of] what is exterior and foreign to ourselves'. Not that we cannot experience ourselves, or what is our own, as a source of such admiration. Rather our responses, favourable or no, are improperly grounded in any essentially reflexive, or first-personal, ways of taking what engages us. The suggestion is tested against the case of Narcissus. (2) Glauser interestingly emphasizes Shaftesbury's neo-Platonic conception of a hierarchy of aesthetic experience that culminates in the joyful contemplation of God. That hierarchy must be something that is less unitary and systematic than Shaftesbury himself had supposed, even when his emphasis on the tie between aesthetic pleasure and contemplative experience is allowed to extend beyond perception and to encompass episodes of thought itself|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paisley Livingston (2006). Utile Et Dulce: A Response to Noël Carroll. British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (3):274-281.
Derek Matravers (2003). The Aesthetic Experience. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):158-174.
Mordechai Gordon (2012). Exploring the Relationship Between Humor and Aesthetic Experience. Journal of Aesthetic Education 46 (1).
Dabney Townsend (1987). From Shaftesbury To Kant: The Development Of The Concept Of Aesthetic Experience. Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (April-June):287-305.
Anthony Savile (2002). Aesthetic Experience in Shaftesbury: Anthony Savile. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):55–74.
Monika Bokiniec (2009). Mieczysław Wallis: Experience and Value. Estetika 46 (1).
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990). The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter. Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Anthony Graybosch (2002). American Beauty. Acta Analytica 17 (1):133-150.
Michael B. Gill, Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury]. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Alison Ross (2010). The Modern Concept of Aesthetic Experience: From Ascetic Pleasure to Social Criticism. Critical Horizons 11 (3):333-339.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #31,973 of 549,359 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,359 )
How can I increase my downloads?