休谟《品位标准》中真正法官的主要业务

IF 0.7 1区 艺术学 0 ART BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1093/aesthj/ayae009
Byoungjae Kim
{"title":"休谟《品位标准》中真正法官的主要业务","authors":"Byoungjae Kim","doi":"10.1093/aesthj/ayae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In his essay ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, Hume identifies two standards of taste: the general rules of art and the joint verdict of true judges. From this the following questions arise: Why did Hume present two standards? And, how should we understand the relation between them? We must first get a firmer grasp on each of the standards that Hume presents. Hence, this paper has two main goals. The first is to understand the general rules of art in the light of Hume’s philosophical method, which is consonant with Newtonian methods of analysis and synthesis. The second is to provide a new interpretation of what Hume takes to be the joint verdict of true judges. In my interpretation, the joint verdict of true judges constitutes the standard of taste, not because their verdicts converge, but because their verdicts encompass blameless differences. With this new foundation for understanding the two standards, I will present my own reading of the relation between them.","PeriodicalId":46609,"journal":{"name":"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The chief business of the true judges in Hume’s Standard of Taste\",\"authors\":\"Byoungjae Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aesthj/ayae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In his essay ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, Hume identifies two standards of taste: the general rules of art and the joint verdict of true judges. From this the following questions arise: Why did Hume present two standards? And, how should we understand the relation between them? We must first get a firmer grasp on each of the standards that Hume presents. Hence, this paper has two main goals. The first is to understand the general rules of art in the light of Hume’s philosophical method, which is consonant with Newtonian methods of analysis and synthesis. The second is to provide a new interpretation of what Hume takes to be the joint verdict of true judges. In my interpretation, the joint verdict of true judges constitutes the standard of taste, not because their verdicts converge, but because their verdicts encompass blameless differences. With this new foundation for understanding the two standards, I will present my own reading of the relation between them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayae009\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayae009","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

休谟在《论品位的标准》一文中指出了品位的两种标准:艺术的一般规则和真正法官的共同裁决。由此产生了以下问题:休谟为什么要提出两种标准?我们应该如何理解它们之间的关系?我们首先必须对休谟提出的每一种标准有一个更牢固的把握。因此,本文有两个主要目标。一是根据休谟的哲学方法来理解艺术的一般规则,这与牛顿的分析和综合方法是一致的。其次是对休谟所认为的真正法官的共同裁决做出新的解释。在我的解释中,真正的法官的共同裁决构成了品味的标准,这不是因为他们的裁决趋同,而是因为他们的裁决包含了无可指责的差异。有了理解这两种标准的新基础,我将对它们之间的关系提出自己的解读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The chief business of the true judges in Hume’s Standard of Taste
In his essay ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, Hume identifies two standards of taste: the general rules of art and the joint verdict of true judges. From this the following questions arise: Why did Hume present two standards? And, how should we understand the relation between them? We must first get a firmer grasp on each of the standards that Hume presents. Hence, this paper has two main goals. The first is to understand the general rules of art in the light of Hume’s philosophical method, which is consonant with Newtonian methods of analysis and synthesis. The second is to provide a new interpretation of what Hume takes to be the joint verdict of true judges. In my interpretation, the joint verdict of true judges constitutes the standard of taste, not because their verdicts converge, but because their verdicts encompass blameless differences. With this new foundation for understanding the two standards, I will present my own reading of the relation between them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
37.50%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Founded in 1960, the British Journal of Aesthetics is highly regarded as an international forum for debate in philosophical aesthetics and the philosophy of art. The Journal is published to promote the study and discussion of philosophical questions about aesthetic experience and the arts. Appearing quarterly - in January, April, July, and October - it publishes lively and thoughtful articles on a broad range of topics from the nature of aesthetic judgement and the principles of art criticism to foundational issues concerning the visual arts, literature, music, dance, film, and architecture.
期刊最新文献
Aesthetic Non-Naturalism The Geography of Taste An Analytic of Eeriness Why delight in screamed vocals? Emotional hardcore and the case against beautifying pain The chief business of the true judges in Hume’s Standard of Taste
×
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