De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross‐cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

Mind and Language 34 (3):317-338 (2018)

Authors
Amita Chatterjee
Jadavpur University
Hyundeuk Cheon
Seoul National University
Noel Struchiner
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
23 more
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.
Keywords aesthetic judgment  aesthetic realism  cross-cultural  experimental philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2019
DOI 10.1111/mila.12210
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 49,128
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What Do Philosophers Believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
The Weirdest People in the World?Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):61-83.
Critique of Judgment.Immanuel Kant & Werner S. Pluhar - 1987 - Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.Fred Feldman & J. L. Mackie - 1979 - Philosophical Review 88 (1):134.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

An Empirical Investigation of Guilty Pleasures.Kris Goffin & Florian Cova - 2019 - Philosophical Psychology 32 (7):1129-1155.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kant and the Common Law: Intersubjectivity in Aesthetic and Legal Judgment.Douglas Edlin - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):429-460.
Aesthetics is the Grammar of Desire.Jennifer A. McMahon - 2015 - Aesthetic Investigations 1 (1):156-164.
Aesthetic Rationality.Keren Gorodeisky & Eric Marcus - 2018 - Journal of Philosophy 115 (3):113-140.
Credulity and Experience of God.Jerome Gellman - 2007 - Philo 10 (2):114-124.
Aesthetic Essays.Malcolm Budd - 2008 - Oxford University Press.
The Significance of Taste: Kant, Aesthetic and Reflective Judgment.Robert B. Pippin - 1996 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (4):549-569.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-08-04

Total views
85 ( #106,489 of 2,311,514 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #74,364 of 2,311,514 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature