8 found
Order:
See also:
Profile: Keren Gorodeisky (Auburn University)
  1.  82
    Keren Gorodeisky (2010). A New Look at Kant's View of Aesthetic Testimony. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):53-70.
    In this paper I explore the following threefold question: first, is there a genuine problem of grounding aesthetic judgement in testimony? Second, if there is such a problem, what exactly is its nature? And lastly, can Kant help us get clearer on the problem? Following Kant, I argue that the problem with aesthetic testimony is explained by norms that govern what it takes to judge a beautiful object aesthetically, rather than theoretically or practically, not by norms that govern what it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  2.  4
    Keren Gorodeisky (2016). 19th Century Romantic Aesthetics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    The entry aims to explain a core feature of otherwise different variants of romanticism: the commitment to “the primacy of aesthetics.” This commitment is often expressed by the claim that the “aesthetic”—most broadly that which concerns beauty and art—should permeate and shape human life. The entry proposes that this romantic imperative should be understood as a structural or formal demand. On that reading, the romantic imperative requires that we model our epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, political, social and scientific pursuits according to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  5
    Kelly Dean Jolley & Keren Gorodeisky (2014). The Unboundedness of the Plain; or the Ubiquity of Lilliput? How to Do Things with Thompson Clarke? International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 4 (3-4):225-262.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  17
    Keren Gorodeisky (2011). (Re)Encountering Individuality: Schlegel's Romantic Imperative as a Response to Nihilism. Inquiry 54 (6):567 - 590.
    According to Friedrich Schlegel: "The Romantic imperative demands [that] all nature and science should become art [and] art should become nature and science"; "[P]oetry and philosophy should be made unified?, and ?life and society [should be made] poetic". The aim of this paper is to explain why Schlegel believes that this is an imperative that constrains philosophy and ordinary life. I argue that the answer to this question requires that we regard the Romantic imperative as a response to the skeptical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Keren Gorodeisky (2014). ’No Poetry, No Reality:’ Schlegel, Wittgenstein, Fiction and Reality. In Dalia Nassar (ed.), The Relevance of Romanticism. 163-185.
  6. Keren Gorodeisky (forthcoming). Rationally Agential Pleasure? A Kantian Proposal. In Lisa Shapiro (ed.), Pleasure: a History. Oxford University Press
    The main claim of the paper is that, on Kant's account, aesthetic pleasure is an exercise of rational agency insofar as, when proper, it has the following two features: (1) It is an affective responsiveness to the question: “what is to be felt disinterestedly”? As such, it involves consciousness of its ground (the reasons for having it) and thus of itself as properly responsive to its object. (2) Its actuality depends on endorsement: actually feeling it involves its endorsement as an (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Keren Gorodeisky (2013). Schematizing Without a Concept? Imagine That! In Margit Ruffing, Claudio La Rocca, Alfredo Ferrarin & Stefano Bacin (eds.), Kant Und Die Philosophie in Weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des Xi. Kant-Kongresses 2010. De Gruyter 59-70.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Keren Gorodeisky (forthcoming). Value First: Comments on Mohan Matthen’s ‘The Pleasure of Art’. Australasian Philosophical Review 1 (1).
    While I welcome Mohan Matthen’s insistence that art is connected to aesthetic pleasure, I worry about his commitment to viewing pleasure as prior to, and constitutive of, the value of art. I raise my reservations by (i) dispelling his criticism of the reversed explanatory direction, and (ii) showing problems for his commitment. As an alternative, I offer an account of pleasure that explains it in terms of the independent value of art—an account that is free of the problems Matthen raises (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography