{"title":"毕竟,马戈利斯对韦茨艺术定义的质疑是什么?","authors":"Aili Whalen","doi":"10.19079/eajp.2.2.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.","PeriodicalId":300319,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What, After All, Is Margolis’ Problem With Weitz’ Definition of Art?\",\"authors\":\"Aili Whalen\",\"doi\":\"10.19079/eajp.2.2.57\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.57\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
What, After All, Is Margolis’ Problem With Weitz’ Definition of Art?
This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.