勾勒美:论形式美与审美的边界

IF 0.6 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Ratio Pub Date : 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1111/rati.12388
Panos Paris
{"title":"勾勒美:论形式美与审美的边界","authors":"Panos Paris","doi":"10.1111/rati.12388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philosophical aesthetics has recently been expanding its purview—with exciting work on everyday aesthetics, somaesthetics, gustatory aesthetics, and the aesthetics of imperceptibilia like mathematics and human character—reclaiming territory that was lost during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the discipline begun concentrating almost exclusively on the philosophy of art and restricted the aesthetic realm to the distally perceptible. Yet there remains considerable reluctance towards acknowledging the aesthetic character of many of these objects. This raises an important question—partly made salient again by the ongoing expansion of the aesthetic domain, and partly by the fact that many still seem resistant to this aesthetic diversification—which aestheticians seem to avoid: what, if anything, constrains the scope of beauty or the aesthetic? I argue that form, construed as comprising a degree, however minimal, of experienceable complexity, is necessary and sufficient for an object's candidature for the possession of aesthetic properties. Such a condition serves to discriminate between attempts to expand the scope of the aesthetic that are legitimate and those that are not. If correct, my view suggests that the aesthetic realm, though not limitless, is very broad indeed—but this, I think, is as it should be.","PeriodicalId":46553,"journal":{"name":"Ratio","volume":"32 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delineating beauty: On form and the boundaries of the aesthetic\",\"authors\":\"Panos Paris\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rati.12388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Philosophical aesthetics has recently been expanding its purview—with exciting work on everyday aesthetics, somaesthetics, gustatory aesthetics, and the aesthetics of imperceptibilia like mathematics and human character—reclaiming territory that was lost during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the discipline begun concentrating almost exclusively on the philosophy of art and restricted the aesthetic realm to the distally perceptible. Yet there remains considerable reluctance towards acknowledging the aesthetic character of many of these objects. This raises an important question—partly made salient again by the ongoing expansion of the aesthetic domain, and partly by the fact that many still seem resistant to this aesthetic diversification—which aestheticians seem to avoid: what, if anything, constrains the scope of beauty or the aesthetic? I argue that form, construed as comprising a degree, however minimal, of experienceable complexity, is necessary and sufficient for an object's candidature for the possession of aesthetic properties. Such a condition serves to discriminate between attempts to expand the scope of the aesthetic that are legitimate and those that are not. If correct, my view suggests that the aesthetic realm, though not limitless, is very broad indeed—but this, I think, is as it should be.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ratio\",\"volume\":\"32 23\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ratio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12388\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ratio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12388","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哲学美学最近一直在扩大它的范围——在日常美学、躯体美学、味觉美学以及数学和人类性格等不可感知的事物的美学方面开展了令人兴奋的工作——重新夺回了在19世纪和20世纪失去的领域,当时这门学科开始几乎完全集中在艺术哲学上,并将美学领域限制在远观可感知的领域。然而,对于承认这些物品的美学特征,人们仍然相当不情愿。这就提出了一个重要的问题——部分是由于美学领域的不断扩大而再次突出,部分是由于许多人似乎仍然抵制这种美学多样化——这是美学家似乎避免的:如果有的话,是什么限制了美或美学的范围?我认为,形式,被解释为包含一定程度的,无论多么微小的,可体验的复杂性,是必要的和充分的,对于一个对象的候选资格,拥有审美属性。这种情况有助于区分那些试图扩大美学范围的尝试是合法的,哪些是不合法的。如果我的观点是正确的,那么我的观点表明,美学领域虽然不是无限的,但确实是非常广泛的——但我认为,这是应该的。
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
Delineating beauty: On form and the boundaries of the aesthetic
Philosophical aesthetics has recently been expanding its purview—with exciting work on everyday aesthetics, somaesthetics, gustatory aesthetics, and the aesthetics of imperceptibilia like mathematics and human character—reclaiming territory that was lost during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the discipline begun concentrating almost exclusively on the philosophy of art and restricted the aesthetic realm to the distally perceptible. Yet there remains considerable reluctance towards acknowledging the aesthetic character of many of these objects. This raises an important question—partly made salient again by the ongoing expansion of the aesthetic domain, and partly by the fact that many still seem resistant to this aesthetic diversification—which aestheticians seem to avoid: what, if anything, constrains the scope of beauty or the aesthetic? I argue that form, construed as comprising a degree, however minimal, of experienceable complexity, is necessary and sufficient for an object's candidature for the possession of aesthetic properties. Such a condition serves to discriminate between attempts to expand the scope of the aesthetic that are legitimate and those that are not. If correct, my view suggests that the aesthetic realm, though not limitless, is very broad indeed—but this, I think, is as it should be.
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
Ratio
Ratio PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Ratio publishes work of a high quality on a wide variety of topics. It encourages articles which meet the highest standards of philosophical expertise, while at the same time remaining accessible to readers from a broad range of philosophical disciplines. The journal"s main emphasis is on analytic philosophy, but it also includes work from other traditions.
期刊最新文献
Intrinsic Properties and the Problem of “Other Things” Rejecting norms of standing for private blame The property of goal‐directedness: Lessons from the dispositions debate The limits of compromise Prime matter emergentism: Unity without reduction
×
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