Wittgenstein on aesthetics and philosophy

[thumbnail of Wittgenstein on Aesthetics and Philosophy.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Schroeder, S. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-6458 (2019) Wittgenstein on aesthetics and philosophy. Revista de Historiografía, 32. pp. 11-21. ISSN 2445-0057 doi: 10.20318/revhisto.2019.4891

Abstract/Summary

Wittgenstein offers three objections to the idea of aesthetics as a branch of psychology: (i) Statistical data about people’s preferences have no normative force. (ii) Artistic value is not instrumental value, a capacity to produce independently identifiable – and scientifically measurable – psychological effects. (iii) While psychological investigations may bring to light the causes of aesthetic preferences, they fail to provide reasons for them. According to Wittgenstein, aesthetic explanations (unlike scientific explanations) are poignant synoptic representations of aspects of a work, and the criterion of success of an aesthetic explanation is that it satisfies the addressee. He repeatedly remarked that they resemble philosophical explanations, which also try to dispel puzzlement or confusion. The difference, however, is that whereas in philosophy we deal with general conceptual problems, aesthetic explanations typically concern individual responses to particular works of art.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/84464
Identification Number/DOI 10.20318/revhisto.2019.4891
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Humanities > Philosophy
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar