Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.advisorGaut, Berys Nigel
dc.contributor.advisorBroadie, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorCooke, Brandon L.
dc.coverage.spatialviii, 194 p.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-25T13:26:53Z
dc.date.available2018-04-25T13:26:53Z
dc.date.issued2003-06
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/13217
dc.description.abstractA puzzle is generated by two intuitions about artworks: 1. There is no prima facie reason to take artworks to be mind-independent objects; 2. Aesthetic judgments are objective. These intuitions seem to be in tension, for if artworks or their aesthetic properties are mind-dependent, how can aesthetic judgments be objective? The common solution to the puzzle lies in rejecting or revising one of the two intuitions. Typically, realists reject 1, and many antirealists reject 2. I develop an antirealist aesthetic theory that accommodates both intuitions, focusing on critical disagreement between epistemically optimal judges, realist difficulties with supervenience and response-dependence, the role of imagination in the experience of artworks, and the metaphorical quality of aesthetic discourse. The hallmark of realism, namely the mind-independence of aesthetic qualities, is an untenable commitment that yields an impoverished view of artworks. A cognitivist anti-realism is available which preserves the objectivity of aesthetic discourse and yields a richer conception of artworks and our interaction with them.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of St Andrews
dc.subject.lccBH39.C7
dc.subject.lcshAesthetics.en
dc.subject.lcshRealism.en
dc.titleAesthetic antirealismen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen_US
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen_US
dc.publisher.institutionThe University of St Andrewsen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record