DOCSLIB.ORG

Metaethical Relativism 12

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metaethical Relativism 12 Acta Philosophia Gothoburgensia 24 RAGNAR FRANC ACTA PHILOSOPHICA GOTHOBURGENSIA ISSN 0283-2380 Editors: Helge Malmgren, Christian Munthe, Ingmar Persson and Dag Westerståhl Published by the Department of Philosophy of the University of Göteborg ÉN Subscription to the series and orders for single volumes should be addressed to: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS Box 222, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden VOLUMES PUBLISHED METAETHICAL RELATIVISM METAETHICAL 12. LARS SANDMAN: A Good Death: On the Value of Death and Dying. METAETHICAL 2001. 346 pp. 13. KENT GUSTAVSSON: Emergent Consciousness. Themes in C.D. Broad’s Philosophy of Mind. 2002. 204 pp. RELATIVISM 14. FRANK LORENTZON: Fri vilja? 2002. 175 pp. Against the 15. JAN LIF: Can a Consequentialist Be a Real Friend? (Who Cares?). 2003. 167 pp. Single Analysis Assumption 16. FREDRIK SUNDQUIST: Perceptual Dynamics. Theoretical Foundations and Philosophical Implications of Gestalt Psychology. 2003. 261 pp. 17. JONAS GREN: Applying Utilitarianism. The Problem of Practical Action-guidance. 2004. 160 pp. Ragnar 18. NIKLAS JUTH: Genetic Information – Values and Rights. The Morality of Presymptomatic Genetic Testing. 2005. 459 pp. Francén 19. SUSANNA RADOVIC: Introspecting Representations. 2005. 200 pp. 20. PETRA ANDERSSON: Humanity and Nature. Towards a Consistent Holistic Environmental Ethics. 2007. 190 pp. 21. JAN ALMÄNG: Intentionality and Intersubjectivity. 2007. 210 pp. 22. ALEXANDER ALMÉR: Naturalising Intentionality. Inquiries into Realism & Relativism. 2007 284 pp. 23. KRISTOFFER AHLSTRÖM: Constructive Analysis. A Study in Epistemological Methodology. 2007 308 pp. 24. RAGNAR FRANCÉN: Metaethical Relativism. Against the Single Analysis Assumption. 2007 268 pp. ISBN 978-91-7346-604-2 Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Metaethical Relativism Acta Philosophica Gothoburgensia 24 Metaethical Relativism Against the Single Analysis Assumption Ragnar Francén Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Doctoral dissertation in practical philosophy Göteborg University, 2008 © Ragnar Francén 2007 Distribution: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS BOX 222 SE-405 30 Göteborg Sweden Cover design and typesetting: Ragnar Francén ISSN 0283-2380 ISBN 978-91-7346-604-2 Printed in Sweden by Geson, Göteborg 2007 Acknowledgements First, I wish to thank my supervisors. Gunnar Björnsson’s encouraging support and many excellent and inspiring criticisms have been decisive for my completing this dissertation. Folke Tersman was of great help when I formed my first thoughts on the subject, and he has continued to give valuable comments. I owe special thanks to two dear friends. John Eriksson’s constant and astute disagreement with my philosophical views has always meant a lot for making philosophy fun, and now for improving this dissertation. Joakim Sandberg has made many valuable suggestions on my drafts and, not less important, brightened the days of hard philosophical work at the department as my roommate. The discussions at the seminar in practical philosophy at my depart- ment have been both stimulating and helpful. The participants who particularly come to mind (besides those mentioned above) are Pia Nykänen, Ingmar Persson, Anders Tolland, Christian Munthe, Niklas Juth, Caj Strandberg, Sven Nyholm and Jonas Gren. I also want to thank Jonas Olson for extensive comments on a late manuscript of the whole book. The parts on assessor relativism has benefited from correspondence with John MacFarlane. I am grateful to the philosophy school at RSSS, Australian National University for pro- viding a stimulating intellectual environment during my visit in 2004. I’m also grateful to the participants of the seminar in practical philoso- phy at Uppsala University, of the seminar in theoretical philosophy in Gothenburg (especially Susanna Andersson), and of Filosofidagarna in Uppsala 2005. I owe thanks to Ann Mari Teiffel, Daniel Ruhe and Peter Johnsen for practical assistance of different sorts, and to Angus Hawkins for cor- recting my English. Most of the work on this dissertation was pursued within the research project “Relativism”, funded by the Swedish Tercen- tenary Foundation. Finally, I am deeply thankful to Malin, for love and support, and Mika, our son, for his sparkling imagination. Contents Chapter 1 Relativizing the Truth of Moral Judgements ..................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Place of Moral Truth-Value Relativism in Metaethics ..................5 1.3 Relativism .............................................................................................9 1.4 Moral Relativism .................................................................................13 1.5 Moral Truth-Value Relativism ........................................................... 14 1.6 Plan of the Book ..................................................................................24 PART 1 Chapter 2 First Road to Relativism: Emotions and Motivation.......29 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................29 2.2 Contingent Connection to Emotions and Motivation.........................30 2.3 Necessary Connection to Emotions and Motivation: Motivational Internalism.......................................................................................... 37 2.4 Actual System Speaker Relativism and Motivation ............................42 2.5 Ideal System Speaker Relativism and Motivation...............................58 2.6 Absolutists Can Do It Too - De Dicto Internalism .............................63 2.7 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 72 Chapter 3 Second Road to Relativism: Explaining Diversity.............73 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 73 3.2 Radical Moral Disagreements............................................................. 74 3.3 Semantic Arguments from Diversity ..................................................80 3.4 Absolutism’s Dilemma ....................................................................... 91 3.5 Conclusion ..........................................................................................95 Chapter 4 Trouble for Relativism: Explaining Disagreement.......... 97 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 97 4.2 Speaker Relativism and Moral Disagreement ....................................98 4.3 Ways of Answering the Objection ..................................................... 102 4.4 Disagreement About a Common Morality ....................................... 103 4.5 Assessor Relativism .......................................................................... 107 4.6 Reinterpreting or Explaining Away Intuitions ...................................119 4.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 124 PART 2 Chapter 5 Semantic Foundations .................................................. 129 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 129 5.2 Clarification of Some Central Notions ............................................. 130 5.3 The Challenge and Semantic Foundations .........................................134 Chapter 6 Semantic Internalism and Relativism ............................138 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................138 6.2 Intuition-Based Conceptual Analysis.................................................139 6.3 The Challenge Stated ......................................................................... 149 6.4 No Simple Reply: The Difference from the Open Question Argument........................................................................................... 162 6.5 Relativists and Modest Absolutists .................................................. 166 6.6 Objections and Replies...................................................................... 168 6.7 Conclusion .........................................................................................178 Chapter 7 Semantic Externalism and Relativism ........................... 180 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................180 7.2 Causal Theory of Reference...............................................................180 7.3 Social Externalism.............................................................................204 7.4 Conclusion .........................................................................................213 Chapter 8 Analysis Pluralism........................................................215 8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................215 8.2 The Same-But-Different Problem for Analysis Pluralism ............... 218 8.3 Solving the Problem and Explicating Analysis Pluralism ................. 221 8.4 Other Objections and Replies ............................................................233 8.5 Analysis Pluralism and Non-Cognitivism ........................................ 236 8.6 Explaining Metaethical Disagreement............................................... 243 References 248 Index 255 Chapter 1 Relativizing the Truth of Moral Judgements 1.1 Introduction This book investigates the plausibility of relativism in metaethics. In the end
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu Tony Bennett
    The Historical Universal: The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu Tony Bennett The definitive version of this article is published in: Bennet, T. 2005, ‘The Historical Universal: The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’, The British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 141-164. The definitive version of this article is published in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00051.x/abstract (institutional or subscribed access may be required) The journal British Journal of Sociology is available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-4446 (institutional or subscribed access may be required) Copyright remains with the publisher, Blackwell Publishing. Disclaimer Please note that this is an electronic, pre-print version of this article produced by the Institute for Culture & Society, University of Western Sydney, in accordance with the requirements of the publisher. Whilst this version of the article incorporates refereed changes and has been accepted for publication, differences may exist between this and the final, published version. Citations should only be made from the published version. User Agreement Copyright of these pre-print articles are retained by the author. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article to facilitate their own study or non-commercial research. Wider circulation and distribution of the material and/or use of it in profit-making activities is prohibited. URLs to access this pre-print version can
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetic Theory
    Draft Introduction The concept of philosophical aesthetics has an antiquated quality, as does the con- cept of a system or that of morals. This feeling is in no way restricted to artistic praxis and the public indifference to aesthetic theory. Even in academic circles, essays relevant to aesthetics have for decades now noticeably diminished. This point is made in a recent dictionary of philosophy: "There is scarcely another philosophical discipline that rests on such flimsy presuppositions as does aesthet- ics. Like a weather vane it is 'blown about by every philosophical, cultural, and scientific gust; at one moment it is metaphysical and in the next empirical; now normative, then descriptive; now defined by artists, then by connoisseurs; one day art is supposedly the center of aesthetics and natural beauty merely preliminary, the next day art beauty is merely second-hand natural beauty.' Moritz Geiger's description of the dilemma of aesthetics has been true since the middle of the nineteenth century. There is a double reason for this pluralism of aesthetic theo- ries, which are often even left unfinished: It resides on the one hand in the funda- mental difficulty, indeed impossibility, of gaining general access to art by means of a system of philosophical categories, and on the other, in the fact that aesthetic statements have traditionally presupposed theories of knowledge. The problem- atic of theories of knowledge returns directly in aesthetics, because how aesthetics interprets its objects depends on the concept of the object held by the theory of knowledge. This traditional dependency, however, is defined by the subject matter itself and is already contained in the terminology."1 Although this well describes the situation, it does not sufficiently explain it; the other philosophical disciplines, including the theory of knowledge and logic, are no less controversial 332 DRAFT INTRODUCTION 333 and yet interest in them has not flagged to a similar extent.
    [Show full text]
  • Xiv*—Making Sense of Relative Truth
    March 15, 2005 Time: 04:38pm MacFarlane.tex xiv*—making sense of relative truth by John MacFarlane abstract The goal of this paper is to make sense of relativism about truth. There are two key ideas. (1) To be a relativist about truth is to allow that a sentence or proposition might be assessment-sensitive: that is, its truth value might vary with the context of assessment as well as the context of use. (2) Making sense of relativism is a matter of understanding what it would be to commit oneself to the truth of an assessment-sensitive sentence or proposition. nalytic philosophers tend to regard relativism about truth A as hopelessly confused, easily refuted, and even a sign of deficient intellectual character. This attitude is not entirely unreasonable. Proponents of relativism have focused much more on motivating their doctrine than on making sense of it, or even stating clearly what it is to be a relativist about truth. But if relativists have underestimated the difficulties here, their opponents have overestimated them. It is possible to make good sense of relativism about truth—or so I hope to show. In the first part of this paper, I will try to say exactly how the relativist’s position should be stated. Relativism about truth, I will argue, is the view that truth (of sentences or propositions) is relative not just to contexts of use but also to contexts of assessment. The philosophical challenge is to explain what this talk of ‘truth relative to a context of assessment’ means. In the second part of the paper, I will meet this challenge—not by giving a definition (that is not how one should expect to illuminate fundamental concepts like truth), but by giving assessment- relative truth a role to play in a normative account of assertion.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Relativism: a Conceptual Analysis
    Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte ISSN: 1692-8857 [email protected] Universidad del Norte Colombia Villa, Vittorio Relativism: A conceptual analysis Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte, núm. 13, julio-diciembre, 2010, pp. 166-191 Universidad del Norte Barranquilla, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=85418392009 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Relativism: A conceptual analysis Vittorio Villa resumen abstract En este trabajo primero trataré In this paper, first, I will try to de formular una definición conceptual give a conceptual definition of relati- de relativismo con el propósito de vism, with the aim of singling out identificar los elementos básicos the basic elements common to the comunes a las concepciones relati- most relevant relativist conceptions. vistas más relevantes. Calificaré de I will qualify as “relativistic” all con- “relativistas” todas las concepciones ceptions in which all or a relevant part en las que todos o una parte relevante of its criteria and beliefs necessarily de sus criterios y creencias dependen depend on a given context. Secondly, necesariamente de un contexto dado. I will deal with some critical obser- Luego trataré algunas observaciones vations against relativism. From críticas contra el relativismo. Desde this point of view, a problem arises este punto de vista, se genera un from the fact that many relativists problema del hecho de que muchos would like to have the chance of relativistas desearían poder expresar expressing some objective judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • A Semantic Solution to the Problem with Aesthetic Testimony*
    A Semantic Solution to the Problem with Aesthetic Testimony* James Andow August 11, 2014 Abstract There is something peculiar about aesthetic testimony. It seems more difficult to gain knowledge of aesthetic properties based solely upon aesthetic testimony than it is in the case of other types of property. In this paper, I argue that we can provide an adequate explanation at the level of the semantics of aesthetic lan- guage, without defending any substantive thesis in epistemology or about aesthetic value/judgement. If aesthetic predicates are given a non-invariantist semantics, we can explain the supposed peculiar difficulty with aesthetic testimony. 1 Intro Here's paradigmatic case of attaining knowledge via testimony. A has a belief with the content p. A knows that p. A tells B, `p', expressing that belief. B comes to know that p (on the basis of the content of A's assertion). Relying on the testimony of people who know will typically, barring doxastic irresponsibility, give you knowledge yourself|at least about mundane matters.1 However, intuitively, it is rather more difficult to attain knowledge about aesthetic properties based solely upon testimony. Relatedly, assertions such as, `the film is absolutely superb, although I have never seen it,' are intuitively unacceptable.2 It seems that any successful account of aesthetic testimony will have something to say about these intuitions. In the currently raging debates on aesthetic testimony these intu- itions tend to be treated, if not as data, at least as something to be explained|perhaps *This paper is forthcoming in Acta Analytica. This document is my own copy of the final version of this paper, not the official published version.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematizing the Theoretical Virtues
    Systematizing the theoretical virtues Michael N. Keas Synthese An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science ISSN 0039-7857 Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1355-6 1 23 Your article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works, as long as the author of the original work is cited. You may self- archive this article on your own website, an institutional repository or funder’s repository and make it publicly available immediately. 1 23 Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-017-1355-6 Systematizing the theoretical virtues Michael N. Keas1 Received: 14 April 2016 / Accepted: 22 February 2017 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract There are at least twelve major virtues of good theories: evidential accuracy, causal adequacy, explanatory depth, internal consistency, internal coherence, universal coherence, beauty, simplicity, unification, durability, fruitfulness, and applicability. These virtues are best classified into four classes: evidential, coherential, aesthetic, and diachronic. Each virtue class contains at least three virtues that sequentially fol- low a repeating pattern of progressive disclosure and expansion. Systematizing the theoretical virtues in this manner clarifies each virtue and suggests how they might have a coordinated and cumulative role in theory formation and evaluation across the disciplines—with allowance for discipline specific modification. An informal and flexible logic of theory choice is in the making here. Evidential accuracy (empirical fit), according to my systematization, is not a largely isolated trait of good theories, as some (realists and antirealists) have made it out to be.
    [Show full text]
  • AESTHETIC JUDGMENT in LAW Brian Soucek* ABSTRACT
    3 SOUCEK 381-467 (DO NOT DELETE) 11/14/2017 8:30 PM AESTHETIC JUDGMENT IN LAW Brian Soucek* ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. 382 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 382 I. AESTHETICS THROUGHOUT THE LAW .................................................... 387 A. Public Funding ........................................................................ 389 B. Taxes and Tariffs ..................................................................... 396 1. Taxes .................................................................................. 396 2. Tariffs ................................................................................. 404 C. Land Use .................................................................................. 412 D. Obscenity ................................................................................. 419 E. Intellectual Property ................................................................ 426 1. Copyright Infringement ..................................................... 427 2. Fair Use ............................................................................. 431 3. Beauty Versus Utility ......................................................... 437 4. VARA ................................................................................. 442 II. THREE ARGUMENTS AGAINST AESTHETIC JUDGMENT ......................... 446 A. Judicial Competence ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Relativism (Conventional Relativism): This View Asserts That Moral Claims Are Only “True” Or “False” Relative to a Particular Culture (Or Society)
    Standards and Obstacles to Critical Thinking PART 3 Obstacle to Critical Thinking: Relativism Relativism is a theory about the nature of truth. This theory holds that… There is no such thing as “objective” truth, only opinions which differ from person to person or society to society. No opinion is objectively superior to, or inferior to, any other opinion. All opinions are equally “true” relative to the speaker. Relativism is a serious Obstacle to Critical Thinking and should be avoided. Relativism vs. Relativity Clearly, there are appropriate and rational grounds for employing the concept of relativity in the pursuit of truth. EXAMPLE: Whether an object is to one’s left or right is relative to ones position. EXAMPLE: Whether a person is “tall” or “short” is relative to the comparison group. For example, a person who is 5’11” may appear tall in one country (e.g. Sri Lanka), but somewhat average in another (e.g. Slovenia). EXAMPLE: We can often better understand and empathize with others when we grasp and respect the importance of contingent perspectives. Global Relativism Global relativism is the view that the truth of all claims (even descriptive and conceptual claims) are relative. This view is vulnerable to the charge of self-referential inconsistency. Suppose one were to believe that “all claims are relative.” But if this is so, then the claim that “all claims are relative,” is itself relative. Thus, one cannot consistently assert this claim is true, without also acknowledging that it is not true in any objective sense. Values Relativism Though some thinkers have embraced the notion of global relativism, the most commonly held views of relativism pertain to values: Aesthetic Relativism: Aesthetics is the discipline that considers issues of beauty and artistic taste.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Hume and Omnivores — a Contemporary Look at the Notion of Taste Mélissa Thériault* Université Du Québec À Trois-Rivières
    Of Hume and Omnivores — A Contemporary Look at the Notion of Taste Mélissa Thériault* Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Abstract. This paper centres on David Hume’s Of the Standard of Taste, the well-known essay in which the Scottish philosopher tries to answer this tricky question: How can one explain that the judgment of taste pre- vails over the judgment of preference without calling on an argument of authority? Humean thought therefore contains the seeds of today’s cen- tral elements: the awareness concerning the functioning of the discourse attempting to explain aesthetic experience, and sharper lucidity about the limits of this discourse. Hume rightly draws attention to the impact of using certain terms, and more specifically to that of the polysemy of vo- cabulary used to evaluate these works of art. The second part takes a more contemporary look at Humean theory and offers a reading of the classic essay using a notion developed in the sociology of art by R.A. Peterson, namely “cultural omnivorousness.” 1. Introduction In the 18th century,the notion of rule contributed to defining various fun- damental concepts of the nascent discipline of aesthetics. The philoso- phers referring to this notion at the time were many, as were the various meanings ascribed to the term. Diderot, for instance, used the notion of rule to define genius (the ability to distance oneself from rules) as well as the expert (who knows how to apply rules). Kant for his part considered the ability to generate rules, which will be imitated by others, the mark of a genius.
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetic Relativism Derek Matravers Open University
    Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 7, No. 1, April 2010 AESTHETIC RELATIVISM DEREK MATRAVERS OPEN UNIVERSITY /U NIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE I. INTRODUCTION As Hume remarks, the view that aesthetic evaluations are ‘subjective’ is part of common sense—one certainly meets it often enough in conversation. As philosophers, we can distinguish the one sense of the claim (‘aesthetic evaluations are mind- dependent’) from another (‘aesthetic evaluations are relative’). A plausible reading of the former claim (‘some of the grounds of some aesthetic evaluations are response- dependent’) is true. This paper concerns the latter claim. It is not unknown, or even unexpected, to find people who believe that aesthetic evaluations are culturally relative, or even agent-relative. A cultural relativist would hold that there is no way to adjudicate an apparent disagreement between, say, a Japanese critic who finds Wright of Derby clunky and unsubtle, and a British critic who finds Utamaro’s flower pictures overly pretty and sentimental. An agent-relativist would hold there was no way to adjudicate between someone who thought Renoir sickly sweet, and someone who found his work ravishingly beautiful. The view is little discussed in contemporary Anglo-American aesthetics in exactly this form, although the attempts to prove the intersubjective validity of aesthetic evaluation (ISV),1 would, if they worked, show relativism to be false. Furthermore, thoughts on aesthetic relativism can 1 I have taken this abbreviation from a critical notice of Malcolm Budd’s Aesthetic Essays by Rob Hopkins (forthcoming). Hopkins’ paper also inspired some thoughts that lurk in the far background of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Goodness of Beauty and the Beauty of Goodness
    The Goodness of Beauty and the Beauty of Goodness Paige Schonher Mount Holyoke College 2015 1 Acknowledgments I am very grateful to my advisor, James Harold, for his encouragement, guidance, and support during fourteen months of work, and the months of making arrangements before that. I am deeply appreciative of his flexibility and willingness to work with a student who spent a third of her independent study abroad and a third student teaching, and of all the extra logistical work that that entailed. My time at Mount Holyoke has certainly been enriched by my experiences as your student. I would also like to thank Daniel Hagen for taking the time to share his vast knowledge of ancient philosophy with me and for comments on an early draft of my first chapter, and to thank Daniel Hagen and Amy Grillo both for agreeing to be on my thesis committee. I would additionally thank the philosophy department as a whole for being such a supportive and inspiring department, that is generous with both their time and their expertise. Finally, I would like to thank my high school philosophy teacher, Dr. Fleet, for inspiring my love of philosophy and most especially of Plato in the first place. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 6 Chapter 1: Plato 7 What Beauty Is­ Hippias Major 8 ​ What Beauty Does­ Symposium 10 ​ What Beauty Does­ Phaedrus 14 ​ What Beauty Does­ Republic 15 ​ The Theory of the Forms 16 A Platonic Philosophy of the Arts? 19 Musical Training as Aesthetic Education? 20 The Problematic Effects of Poetry: 21 Emotional Contagion
    [Show full text]
  • A Semantic Solution to the Problem with Aesthetic Testimony
    A semantic solution to the problem with aesthetic testimony Article Accepted Version Andow, J. (2015) A semantic solution to the problem with aesthetic testimony. Acta Analytica, 30 (2). pp. 211-218. ISSN 0353-5150 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-014-0238-4 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/42078/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-014-0238-4 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-014-0238-4 Publisher: Springerlink All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online A Semantic Solution to the Problem with Aesthetic Testimony James Andow May 25, 2015 Abstract There is something peculiar about aesthetic testimony. It seems more dicult to gain knowledge of aesthetic properties based solely upon aesthetic testimony than it is in the case of other types of property. In this paper, I argue that we can provide an adequate explanation at the level of the semantics of aesthetic language without defending any sub- stantive thesis in epistemology or about aesthetic value/judgement. If aesthetic predicates are given a non-invariantist semantics, we can explain the supposed peculiar diculty with aesthetic testimony.
    [Show full text]