Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Dickie's critique of the aesthetic attitude shows that positing a special 'aesthetic gear' is explanatorily vacuous, not a genuine mechanism of value-creation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some psychological capacities are genuinely distinct (e.g., attending to form vs. function) and 'attitude' usefully names this difference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Dickie's own institutional account requires gatekeepers to recognize objects as art—a hidden appeal to something like aesthetic discernment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if 'aesthetic attitude' is vague, it captures real differences in how we engage with objects; vagueness needn't mean explanatory vacuity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Invoking 'aesthetic attitude' merely relabels the phenomenon without explaining what psychological mechanism produces aesthetic experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If aesthetic value depends on adopting a special attitude, then identical objects should have identical value regardless of context—but they don't.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Institutional theory better explains aesthetic status by pointing to actual social practices, rather than positing internal mental states.
?
How convincing is this?
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.