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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cova, Florian
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Olivola, Christopher Y., Machery, Edouard, Stich, Stephen, Rose, David, Alai, Mario, Angelucci, Adriano, Berniūnas, Renatas, Buchtel, Emma E., Chatterjee, Amita, Cheon, Hyundeuk, Cho, In Rae, Cohnitz, Daniel, Dranseika, Vilius, Lagos, Ángeles E., Ghadakpour, Laleh, Grinberg, Maurice, Hannikainen, Ivar, Hashimoto, Takaaki, Horowitz, Amir, Hristova, Evgeniya, Jraissati, Yasmina, Kadreva, Veselina, Karasawa, Kaori, Kim, Hackjin, Kim, Yeonjeong, Lee, Minwoo, Mauro, Carlos, Mizumoto, Masaharu, Moruzzi, Sebastiano, Ornelas, Jorge, Osimani, Barbara, Romero, Carlos, Rosas, Alejandro, Sangoi, Massimo, Sereni, Andrea, Songhorian, Sarah, Sousa, Paulo, Struchiner, Noel, Tripodi, Vera, Usui, Naoki, Mercado, Alejandro V. del, Volpe, Giorgio, Vosgerichian, Hrag A., Zhang, Xueyi, Zhu, Jing
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/40314
Resumo: 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.
id RCAP_a2e882ed248629a04defc795bdc5cb8a
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ucp.pt:10400.14/40314
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgmentAesthetic judgmentAesthetic realismCross-culturalExperimental philosophySince 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.Veritati - Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica PortuguesaCova, FlorianOlivola, Christopher Y.Machery, EdouardStich, StephenRose, DavidAlai, MarioAngelucci, AdrianoBerniūnas, RenatasBuchtel, Emma E.Chatterjee, AmitaCheon, HyundeukCho, In RaeCohnitz, DanielDranseika, ViliusLagos, Ángeles E.Ghadakpour, LalehGrinberg, MauriceHannikainen, IvarHashimoto, TakaakiHorowitz, AmirHristova, EvgeniyaJraissati, YasminaKadreva, VeselinaKarasawa, KaoriKim, HackjinKim, YeonjeongLee, MinwooMauro, CarlosMizumoto, MasaharuMoruzzi, SebastianoOrnelas, JorgeOsimani, BarbaraRomero, CarlosRosas, AlejandroSangoi, MassimoSereni, AndreaSonghorian, SarahSousa, PauloStruchiner, NoelTripodi, VeraUsui, NaokiMercado, Alejandro V. delVolpe, GiorgioVosgerichian, Hrag A.Zhang, XueyiZhu, Jing2023-02-22T11:05:06Z2019-062019-06-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/40314eng0268-106410.1111/mila.1221085052377077000471283500003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-12T17:45:51Zoai:repositorio.ucp.pt:10400.14/40314Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T18:33:01.992006Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
title De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
spellingShingle De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
Cova, Florian
Aesthetic judgment
Aesthetic realism
Cross-cultural
Experimental philosophy
title_short De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
title_full De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
title_fullStr De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
title_full_unstemmed De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
title_sort De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment
author Cova, Florian
author_facet Cova, Florian
Olivola, Christopher Y.
Machery, Edouard
Stich, Stephen
Rose, David
Alai, Mario
Angelucci, Adriano
Berniūnas, Renatas
Buchtel, Emma E.
Chatterjee, Amita
Cheon, Hyundeuk
Cho, In Rae
Cohnitz, Daniel
Dranseika, Vilius
Lagos, Ángeles E.
Ghadakpour, Laleh
Grinberg, Maurice
Hannikainen, Ivar
Hashimoto, Takaaki
Horowitz, Amir
Hristova, Evgeniya
Jraissati, Yasmina
Kadreva, Veselina
Karasawa, Kaori
Kim, Hackjin
Kim, Yeonjeong
Lee, Minwoo
Mauro, Carlos
Mizumoto, Masaharu
Moruzzi, Sebastiano
Ornelas, Jorge
Osimani, Barbara
Romero, Carlos
Rosas, Alejandro
Sangoi, Massimo
Sereni, Andrea
Songhorian, Sarah
Sousa, Paulo
Struchiner, Noel
Tripodi, Vera
Usui, Naoki
Mercado, Alejandro V. del
Volpe, Giorgio
Vosgerichian, Hrag A.
Zhang, Xueyi
Zhu, Jing
author_role author
author2 Olivola, Christopher Y.
Machery, Edouard
Stich, Stephen
Rose, David
Alai, Mario
Angelucci, Adriano
Berniūnas, Renatas
Buchtel, Emma E.
Chatterjee, Amita
Cheon, Hyundeuk
Cho, In Rae
Cohnitz, Daniel
Dranseika, Vilius
Lagos, Ángeles E.
Ghadakpour, Laleh
Grinberg, Maurice
Hannikainen, Ivar
Hashimoto, Takaaki
Horowitz, Amir
Hristova, Evgeniya
Jraissati, Yasmina
Kadreva, Veselina
Karasawa, Kaori
Kim, Hackjin
Kim, Yeonjeong
Lee, Minwoo
Mauro, Carlos
Mizumoto, Masaharu
Moruzzi, Sebastiano
Ornelas, Jorge
Osimani, Barbara
Romero, Carlos
Rosas, Alejandro
Sangoi, Massimo
Sereni, Andrea
Songhorian, Sarah
Sousa, Paulo
Struchiner, Noel
Tripodi, Vera
Usui, Naoki
Mercado, Alejandro V. del
Volpe, Giorgio
Vosgerichian, Hrag A.
Zhang, Xueyi
Zhu, Jing
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Veritati - Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica Portuguesa
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cova, Florian
Olivola, Christopher Y.
Machery, Edouard
Stich, Stephen
Rose, David
Alai, Mario
Angelucci, Adriano
Berniūnas, Renatas
Buchtel, Emma E.
Chatterjee, Amita
Cheon, Hyundeuk
Cho, In Rae
Cohnitz, Daniel
Dranseika, Vilius
Lagos, Ángeles E.
Ghadakpour, Laleh
Grinberg, Maurice
Hannikainen, Ivar
Hashimoto, Takaaki
Horowitz, Amir
Hristova, Evgeniya
Jraissati, Yasmina
Kadreva, Veselina
Karasawa, Kaori
Kim, Hackjin
Kim, Yeonjeong
Lee, Minwoo
Mauro, Carlos
Mizumoto, Masaharu
Moruzzi, Sebastiano
Ornelas, Jorge
Osimani, Barbara
Romero, Carlos
Rosas, Alejandro
Sangoi, Massimo
Sereni, Andrea
Songhorian, Sarah
Sousa, Paulo
Struchiner, Noel
Tripodi, Vera
Usui, Naoki
Mercado, Alejandro V. del
Volpe, Giorgio
Vosgerichian, Hrag A.
Zhang, Xueyi
Zhu, Jing
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aesthetic judgment
Aesthetic realism
Cross-cultural
Experimental philosophy
topic Aesthetic judgment
Aesthetic realism
Cross-cultural
Experimental philosophy
description 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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-06
2019-06-01T00:00:00Z
2023-02-22T11:05:06Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/40314
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/40314
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0268-1064
10.1111/mila.12210
85052377077
000471283500003
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799132056196743168