Linked bibliography for the SEP article "Aesthetic Judgment" by Nick Zangwill

This is an automatically generated and experimental page

If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.

This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.

References

  • Beardsley, Monroe, 1958. Aesthetics, Indianapolis: Hackett.
    • An extraordinary work, staggering in scope, deploying the notion of the aesthetic. The target of Dickie's critique. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1982. The Aesthetic Point of View, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    • A selection of Beardsley's essays. (Scholar)
  • Blackburn, Simon, 1998. Ruling Passions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • A defense of expressivism, a modern version of Hume's sentimentalism. (Scholar)
  • Budd, Malcolm, 2001. “The Pure Judgement of Taste as an Aesthetic Reflective Judgement,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 41: 247–260.
    • Refreshingly less deferential than many writings on Kant. (Scholar)
  • Burke, Edmund, 1998. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Harmonsworth: Penguin.
    • A classic, although it is sometimes eccentric. (Scholar)
  • Burton, Stephan, 1992. “Thick Concepts Revised,” Analysis, 52: 28–32.
    • An insightful account of substantive aesthetic descriptions, and also of so-called “thick moral concepts”. (Scholar)
  • Cohen, Ted, 1973. “A Critique of Sibley's Position,” Theoria, 39: 113–152.
    • Argues that Sibley's account of what makes concepts aesthetic will not do. (Scholar)
  • Dickie, George, 1965. “Beardsley's Phantom Aesthetic Experience,” Journal of Philosophy, 62: 129–136.
    • Argues that Beardsley's account of aesthetic experience will not do. (Scholar)
  • Davidson, Donald, 1980. “Mental Events,” in Essays on Actions and Events, Blackwell: Oxford.
    • A classic paper in the philosophy of mind arguing for a version of materialism without strict laws relating the mental and the physical. (Scholar)
  • Fine, Kit, 1994. “Essence and Modality,” Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 1–16.
    • Distinguishes essence from modality; of general philosophical importance. (Scholar)
  • Hume, David, 1757. “Of the Standard of Taste,” page reference is to reprint in Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, Eugene Miller (ed.), Indianapolis: Liberty, 1985.
    • Hume's classic attempt to reconcile sentimentalism with normativity. (Scholar)
  • Kant, Immanuel, 1790. Critique of Judgment, page reference to trans. Meredith, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928.
    • Includes the idea that judgments of beauty and ugliness are subjectively universal, and much else. (Scholar)
  • Kivy, Peter, 1975. “What Makes ‘Aesthetic’ Terms Aesthetic?,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 36: 197–211.
    • Argues that Sibley's unitary notion of the aesthetic has no basis. Kivy also makes a positive suggestion. (Scholar)
  • Levinson, Jerrold, 2001. “Aesthetic Properties, Evaluative Force, and Differences of Sensibility,” Aesthetic Concepts: Essays After Sibley, E. Brady and J. Levinson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Argues for some neutral substantive aesthetic properties. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2012. &ldsquo;Musical Beauty”, Teorema, 31(3): 127-135.
    • An nuanced examination of one notion of beauty. (Scholar)
  • Mothersill, Mary, 1984. Beauty Restored, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • An exploration of the notion of beauty, with some historical coverage. (Scholar)
  • Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1998. On the Geneology of Morals. Trans. Maudemarie Clarke and Alan J. Swensen. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
    • Book 3, sections 1-6. An interesting, and not at all uncareful, critique of Kant's aesthetics. In this passage he is not concerned with Schopenhauer. (Scholar)
  • Scruton, Roger, 1974. Art and Imagination, London: Methuen.
    • A wide-ranging book, in which the role of imagination is highlighted. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1979. The Aesthetics of Architecture, London: Methuen.
    • A superb discussion of architecture, but also contains much material relevant to more central topics in aesthetics. (Scholar)
  • Sibley, Frank, 1959. “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review, 68: 421–450; reprinted in Approach to Aesthetics, Clarendon: Oxford, 2001.
    • Sibley's classic paper, which makes the notion of the aesthetic central. The target of Cohen and Kivy's critiques. (Scholar)
  • Sibley, Frank, 1965. “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic,” Philosophical Review, 74: 135–159; reprinted in Approach to Aesthetics, Clarendon: Oxford, 2001.
    • Explores the dependence of aesthetic features on nonaesthetic features. This paper was originally the second part of Sibley's paper “Aesthetic Concepts”. (Scholar)
  • Zangwill, Nick, 1995. “The Beautiful, the Dainty and the Dumpy,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 35: 317–329; reprinted slightly modified in The Metaphysics of Beauty, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
    • Includes a statement and defense of the centrality of beauty and ugliness among other aesthetic concepts. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1999. “Feasible Aesthetic Formalism,” Noûs, 33: 610–629; reprinted in The Metaphysics of Beauty, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
    • Argues for a “moderate” formalist view that allows that things can be “dependently beautiful,” in Kant's sense. (Scholar)
  • Zemach, Eddy, 1995. Real Beauty, University Park: Penn State Press.
    • Argues for an extreme realist view. (Scholar)

Further Reading

Generated Sun Feb 19 07:39:09 2017