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 Beauty cannot be a bare property — it must be grounded in nonaesthetic properties.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's aesthetic formalism holds that beauty is apprehended through pure disinterested judgment, not derivable from any determinate conceptual or nonaesthetic property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If beauty were grounded in nonaesthetic properties, aesthetic judgment would collapse into cognitive or teleological judgment, which Kant's third Critique explicitly distinguishes as a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The logical independence of the judgment of taste from determinate concepts entails that beauty cannot be constitutively dependent on nonaesthetic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's open-question argument establishes that any attempt to define a normative property in terms of natural or nonaesthetic properties commits the naturalistic fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If beauty were necessarily grounded in nonaesthetic properties, one could always coherently ask 'but is it beautiful?' of any nonaesthetic description, showing the entailment fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The persistent open-question about any candidate nonaesthetic base demonstrates that beauty retains irreducible normative autonomy not capturable by supervenience or dependence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Aesthetic properties are inherently 'sociable': they cannot exist without being grounded in nonaesthetic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Something cannot be merely beautiful without being beautiful in virtue of some nonaesthetic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Recognizing that aesthetic properties arise from nonaesthetic properties is constitutive of aesthetic thought itself.
      ?

      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.