Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A conception of art that is not necessarily aesthetic is defensible.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's aesthetic theory establishes that disinterested contemplation is constitutive of art's distinctive rational function, not merely incidental to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If aesthetic experience is constitutive of art's rational function, then a non-aesthetic conception dissolves the categorical distinction between art and mere artifacts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of art that cannot ground a principled distinction between art and mere artifacts is not defensible as a philosophical account of art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Clive Bell and Roger Fry argued that 'significant form' — an irreducibly aesthetic property — is the only property shared across all genuine works of art across cultures and history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's counterexamples from nature and persons show only that aesthetics is insufficient for art, not that aesthetic value is unnecessary for it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of art that abandons aesthetic value as even a necessary condition loses the explanatory power to account for why art historically commands the institutional and critical attention it does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is no decisive philosophical reason to uphold the view that art must aim at aesthetic value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The aesthetic definition of art faces serious counterexamples from nature and persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no decisive reason compels the aesthetic view, there is nothing blocking a non-aesthetic conception of art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.