In Defence of the One-Act View
Reply to Guyer
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7400604 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hannah Ginsborg (0000-0001-8863-4611, University of California, Berkeley, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 57 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 421-435 |
| Publication date | 2017-08-09 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The British Journal of Aesthetics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-0904 • E-ISSN: 1468-2842 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/aesthj/ayx027 |
| OpenAlex | W2770462335 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
I defend my ‘one-act’ interpretation of Kant’s account of judgments of beauty against recent criticisms by Paul Guyer. Guyer’s text-based arguments for his own ‘two-acts’ view rely on the assumption that a claim to the universal validity of one’s pleasure presupposes the prior existence of the pleasure. I argue that pleasure in the beautiful claims its own universal validity, thus obviating the need to distinguish two independent acts of judging. The resulting view, I argue, is closer to the text and more phenomenologically plausible than Guyer’s two-acts alternative
Aesthetics · Beauty · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Pleasure · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Psychology · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2024 (3) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |