Kant's beautiful roses: A response to Cohen's ‘second problem’

British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):65-74 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to Kant, the singular judgement ‘This rose is beautiful’ is, or may be, aesthetic, while the general judgement ‘Roses in general are beautiful’ is not. What, then, is the logical relation between the two judgements? I argue that there is none, and that one cannot allow there to be any if one agrees with Kant that the judgement ‘This rose is beautiful’ cannot be made on the basis of testimony. The appearance of a logical relation between the two judgements can, however, be explained in terms of what one does in making a judgement of taste. Finally, I describe an analogy between Kant's treatment of judgements of taste and J. L. Austin's treatment of explicit performative utterances, which I attribute to a deeper affinity between their respective projects.

Similar books and articles

Beauty and testimony.Robert Hopkins - 2000 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 47:209-236.
Cohen on Kant's aesthetic judgements.Dabney Townsend - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):75-79.
Kant and the Aesthetics of Nature.Alexander Rueger - 2007 - British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (2):138-155.
A Tale of Two Faculties.K. Gorodeisky - 2011 - British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (4):415-436.
A new look at Kant's view of aesthetic testimony.Keren Gorodeisky - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):53-70.
Three problems in Kant's aesthetics.Ted Cohen - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (1):1-12.
Kant on the normativity of taste: The role of aesthetic ideas.Andrew Chignell - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):415 – 433.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
824 (#18,392)

6 months
88 (#52,863)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

More on what we say.Stanley Bates & Ted Cohen - 1972 - Metaphilosophy 3 (1):1–24.

Add more references