De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

Florian Cova; Christopher Y. Olivola; Edouard Machery; Stephen Stich; David Rose; Mario Alai; Adriano Angelucci; Renatas Berniūnas; Emma E. Buchtel; Amita Chatterjee; Hyundeuk Cheon; In Rae Cho; Daniel Cohnitz; Vilius Dranseika; Ángeles E. Lagos; Laleh Ghadakpour; Maurice Grinberg; Ivar Hannikainen; Takaaki Hashimoto; Amir Horowitz; Evgeniya Hristova; Yasmina Jraissati; Veselina Kadreva; Kaori Karasawa; Hackjin Kim; Yeonjeong Kim; Minwoo Lee; Carlos Mauro; Masaharu Mizumoto; Sebastiano Moruzzi; Jorge Ornelas; Barbara Osimani; Carlos Romero; Alejandro Rosas; Massimo Sangoi; Andrea Sereni; Sarah Songhorian; Paulo Sousa; Noel Struchiner; Vera Tripodi; Naoki Usui; Alejandro V. del Mercado; Giorgio Volpe; Hrag A. Vosgerichian; Xueyi Zhang; Jing Zhu

doi:10.1111/mila.12210

De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

Florian Cova, Christopher Y. Olivola, Edouard Machery, Stephen Stich, David Rose, Mario Alai, Adriano Angelucci, Renatas Berniūnas, Emma E. Buchtel, Amita Chatterjee, Hyundeuk Cheon, In Rae Cho, Daniel Cohnitz, Vilius Dranseika, Ángeles E. Lagos, Laleh Ghadakpour, Maurice Grinberg, Ivar Hannikainen, Takaaki Hashimoto, Amir HorowitzEvgeniya Hristova, Yasmina Jraissati, Veselina Kadreva, Kaori Karasawa, Hackjin Kim, Yeonjeong Kim, Minwoo Lee, Carlos Mauro, Masaharu Mizumoto, Sebastiano Moruzzi, Jorge Ornelas, Barbara Osimani, Carlos Romero, Alejandro Rosas, Massimo Sangoi, Andrea Sereni, Sarah Songhorian, Paulo Sousa, Noel Struchiner, Vera Tripodi, Naoki Usui, Alejandro V. del Mercado, Giorgio Volpe, Hrag A. Vosgerichian, Xueyi Zhang, Jing Zhu

Philosophy discipline

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross-cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	317-338
Number of pages	22
Journal	Mind and Language
Volume	34
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12210
State	Published - Jun 2019

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the Fuller Theological Seminary/Thrive Center in concert with the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fuller Thrive Center or the John Templeton Foundation. F.C.'s work on this publication was funded by the Cogito Foundation (Zurich) as part of project S-131/13 (“Towards an experimental philosophy of aesthetics”).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Keywords

aesthetic judgment
aesthetic realism
cross-cultural
experimental philosophy

Access to Document

10.1111/mila.12210

Cite this

Cova, F., Olivola, C. Y., Machery, E., Stich, S., Rose, D., Alai, M., Angelucci, A., Berniūnas, R., Buchtel, E. E., Chatterjee, A., Cheon, H., Cho, I. R., Cohnitz, D., Dranseika, V., Lagos, Á. E., Ghadakpour, L., Grinberg, M., Hannikainen, I., Hashimoto, T., ... Zhu, J. (2019). De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment. Mind and Language, 34(3), 317-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12210

@article{bec206f0ca1448cd97901000b93df817,

title = "De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment",

abstract = "Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross-cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.",

keywords = "aesthetic judgment, aesthetic realism, cross-cultural, experimental philosophy",

author = "Florian Cova and Olivola, {Christopher Y.} and Edouard Machery and Stephen Stich and David Rose and Mario Alai and Adriano Angelucci and Renatas Berniūnas and Buchtel, {Emma E.} and Amita Chatterjee and Hyundeuk Cheon and Cho, {In Rae} and Daniel Cohnitz and Vilius Dranseika and Lagos, {{\'A}ngeles E.} and Laleh Ghadakpour and Maurice Grinberg and Ivar Hannikainen and Takaaki Hashimoto and Amir Horowitz and Evgeniya Hristova and Yasmina Jraissati and Veselina Kadreva and Kaori Karasawa and Hackjin Kim and Yeonjeong Kim and Minwoo Lee and Carlos Mauro and Masaharu Mizumoto and Sebastiano Moruzzi and Jorge Ornelas and Barbara Osimani and Carlos Romero and Alejandro Rosas and Massimo Sangoi and Andrea Sereni and Sarah Songhorian and Paulo Sousa and Noel Struchiner and Vera Tripodi and Naoki Usui and {del Mercado}, {Alejandro V.} and Giorgio Volpe and Vosgerichian, {Hrag A.} and Xueyi Zhang and Jing Zhu",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd",

year = "2019",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1111/mila.12210",

language = "אנגלית",

volume = "34",

pages = "317--338",

journal = "Mind and Language",

issn = "0268-1064",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "3",

}

Cova, F, Olivola, CY, Machery, E, Stich, S, Rose, D, Alai, M, Angelucci, A, Berniūnas, R, Buchtel, EE, Chatterjee, A, Cheon, H, Cho, IR, Cohnitz, D, Dranseika, V, Lagos, ÁE, Ghadakpour, L, Grinberg, M, Hannikainen, I, Hashimoto, T, Horowitz, A, Hristova, E, Jraissati, Y, Kadreva, V, Karasawa, K, Kim, H, Kim, Y, Lee, M, Mauro, C, Mizumoto, M, Moruzzi, S, Ornelas, J, Osimani, B, Romero, C, Rosas, A, Sangoi, M, Sereni, A, Songhorian, S, Sousa, P, Struchiner, N, Tripodi, V, Usui, N, del Mercado, AV, Volpe, G, Vosgerichian, HA, Zhang, X & Zhu, J 2019, 'De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment', Mind and Language, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 317-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12210

TY - JOUR

T1 - De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

AU - Cova, Florian

AU - Olivola, Christopher Y.

AU - Machery, Edouard

AU - Stich, Stephen

AU - Rose, David

AU - Alai, Mario

AU - Angelucci, Adriano

AU - Berniūnas, Renatas

AU - Buchtel, Emma E.

AU - Chatterjee, Amita

AU - Cheon, Hyundeuk

AU - Cho, In Rae

AU - Cohnitz, Daniel

AU - Dranseika, Vilius

AU - Lagos, Ángeles E.

AU - Ghadakpour, Laleh

AU - Grinberg, Maurice

AU - Hannikainen, Ivar

AU - Hashimoto, Takaaki

AU - Horowitz, Amir

AU - Hristova, Evgeniya

AU - Jraissati, Yasmina

AU - Kadreva, Veselina

AU - Karasawa, Kaori

AU - Kim, Hackjin

AU - Kim, Yeonjeong

AU - Lee, Minwoo

AU - Mauro, Carlos

AU - Mizumoto, Masaharu

AU - Moruzzi, Sebastiano

AU - Ornelas, Jorge

AU - Osimani, Barbara

AU - Romero, Carlos

AU - Rosas, Alejandro

AU - Sangoi, Massimo

AU - Sereni, Andrea

AU - Songhorian, Sarah

AU - Sousa, Paulo

AU - Struchiner, Noel

AU - Tripodi, Vera

AU - Usui, Naoki

AU - del Mercado, Alejandro V.

AU - Volpe, Giorgio

AU - Vosgerichian, Hrag A.

AU - Zhang, Xueyi

AU - Zhu, Jing

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross-cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.

AB - Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross-cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.

KW - aesthetic judgment

KW - aesthetic realism

KW - cross-cultural

KW - experimental philosophy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052377077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/mila.12210

DO - 10.1111/mila.12210

M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???

AN - SCOPUS:85052377077

SN - 0268-1064

VL - 34

SP - 317

EP - 338

JO - Mind and Language

JF - Mind and Language

IS - 3

ER -

De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this