The Syncretic Approach to Natural Beauty
What It Is and What It Isn’t
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596237 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ronald Moore (0000-0003-2806-2855, University of Washington, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 357-365 |
| Publication date | 2009-10-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Ethics Place & Environment (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1366-879X • E-ISSN: 1469-6703 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13668790903195719 |
| OpenAlex | W2128367928 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
The theory presented in my book, Natural Beauty, is syncretic in that it denies the exclusivity of any one model of aesthetic appreciation of natural objects and instead insists: (1) that there is a tight, reciprocating connection between talents of perception that we develop in relation to arts and to natural objects; and (2) that the appreciation of natural beauty is intimately connected to the appreciation of other social values, including ethical values. In this paper, I respond to criticisms of my syncretic approach—chiefly that it fails to reconcile objective and subjective elements in aesthetic judgment, that it fails to marshal its many modes of judgment into rational consistency, and that it fails to take proper stock of the role of scientific knowledge in these judgments—offered by Arnold Berleant, Stephanie Ross, and Glenn Parsons
Aesthetics · Beauty · Consistency (knowledge bases · Epistemology · Natural (archaeology · Perception · Relation (database · Sociology · Computer Science · Environmental Philosophy and Ethics · Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art · History · Philosophy · Psychology · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics · Artificial Intelligence
| Highly cited | No |
|---|