Metalinguistic Negotiations and Two Senses of Taste

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Diametros Pub Date : 2021-01-05 DOI:10.33392/diam.1459
David Bordonaba-Plou
{"title":"Metalinguistic Negotiations and Two Senses of Taste","authors":"David Bordonaba-Plou","doi":"10.33392/diam.1459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper defends the claim that the traditional Kantian division between two different types of judgments, judgments of personal preference (subjectively valid) and judgments of taste (intersubjectively valid), does not apply to some contexts in which metalinguistic negotiations take place. To begin, I first highlight some significant similarities between predicates of personal taste and aesthetic predicates. I sustain that aesthetic predicates are gradable and multidimensional, and that they often produce metalinguistic negotiations, characteristics that have motivated an individual treatment for predicates of personal taste. Secondly, contrary to Kant’s claim, I maintain that there are cases where judgments of personal preference are intersubjectively valid; in some contexts of metalinguistic negotiation, judgments of personal preference direct universality to a similar extent as judgments of taste. Some examples of real-life conversations will be presented to illustrate this point.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":"18 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper defends the claim that the traditional Kantian division between two different types of judgments, judgments of personal preference (subjectively valid) and judgments of taste (intersubjectively valid), does not apply to some contexts in which metalinguistic negotiations take place. To begin, I first highlight some significant similarities between predicates of personal taste and aesthetic predicates. I sustain that aesthetic predicates are gradable and multidimensional, and that they often produce metalinguistic negotiations, characteristics that have motivated an individual treatment for predicates of personal taste. Secondly, contrary to Kant’s claim, I maintain that there are cases where judgments of personal preference are intersubjectively valid; in some contexts of metalinguistic negotiation, judgments of personal preference direct universality to a similar extent as judgments of taste. Some examples of real-life conversations will be presented to illustrate this point.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
元语言谈判与两种味觉
本文为这样一种观点辩护,即传统的康德对两种不同类型的判断的划分,即个人偏好判断(主观有效)和品味判断(主体间有效),不适用于发生元语言谈判的某些语境。首先,我强调了个人品味谓词和审美谓词之间的一些显著相似之处。我认为美学谓词是可分级的和多维的,它们经常产生元语言协商,这些特征促使人们对具有个人品味的谓词进行单独的处理。其次,与康德的主张相反,我认为在某些情况下,个人偏好的判断是主体间有效的;在元语言谈判的某些语境中,对个人偏好的判断与对品味的判断具有相似的普遍性。下面将举一些现实生活中的对话例子来说明这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reklamy eksperymentalnych produktów leczniczych i procedur medycznych w świetle polskiego prawa i etyki mediów Programy poszerzonego dostępu jako źródło danych poznawczych Atheist Therapy: Radical Embodiment in Early Modern Medical Materialism Niebezpieczne związki. Problem bliskości we współczesnej dyskusji nad zasadą podwójnego skutku Expertise, disagreement, and trust in vaccine science and policy. The importance of transparency in a world of experts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1