Metalinguistic Negotiations and Two Senses of Taste
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper defends the claim that the traditional Kantian division between two different types of judgments, judgments of personal preference (subjectively valid) and judgments of taste (intersubjectively valid), does not apply to some contexts in which metalinguistic negotiations take place. To begin, I first highlight some significant similarities between predicates of personal taste and aesthetic predicates. I sustain that aesthetic predicates are gradable and multidimensional, and that they often produce metalinguistic negotiations, characteristics that have motivated an individual treatment for predicates of personal taste. Secondly, contrary to Kant’s claim, I maintain that there are cases where judgments of personal preference are intersubjectively valid; in some contexts of metalinguistic negotiation, judgments of personal preference direct universality to a similar extent as judgments of taste. Some examples of real-life conversations will be presented to illustrate this point.
Downloads
Article Details
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Alexander J., Mallon R., Weinberg J.M. (2010), “Accentuate the Negative,” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2): 297−314.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-009-0015-2
Buekens F. (2011), “Faultless Disagreement, Assertions and the Affective-Expressive Dimension of Judgments of Taste,” Philosophia 39 (4): 637−655.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-011-9318-5
Burke E. (1990), A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Oxford University Press, New York.
Cepollaro B., Stojanovic I. (2016), “Hybrid Evaluatives: In Defense of a Presuppositional Account,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 93 (3): 458−488.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09303007
Cova F., Olivola Ch.Y., Marchery E. et al. (2018), “De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Alleged Intersubjective Validity of Aesthetic Judgment,” Mind & Language 34 (3): 317−338.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12210
Egan A. (2014), “There’s Something Funny About Comedy: A Case Study in Faultless Disagreement,” Erkenntnis 79 (1): 73−100.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9446-3
Glanzberg M. (2007), “Context, Content, and Relativism,” Philosophical Studies 136 (1): 1−29.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9145-5
Hegel G.W.F. (1988), Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, vol. I, T.M. Knox (ed.), Clarendon Press, New York.
Hopkins R. (2009), “Taste,” [in:] A Companion to Aesthetics, S. Davies, K.M. Higgins, R. Hopkins et al. (eds.), Blackwell, Singapore: 554−556.
Hume D. (1826), “Of the Standard of Taste,” [in:] The Philosophical Works of David Hume, vol. III, A. Black and W. Tait, Edinburgh: 256−282.
Kant I. (2007), Critique of Judgment, trans. J.C. Meredith, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005), “Scale Structure, Degree Modifi cation, and the Semantics of Gradable Adjectives,” Language 8 (2): 345−381.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071
Kennedy C. (2007), “Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives,” Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (1): 1−45.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0
Kirchin S. (2013), “Introduction: Thick and Thin Concepts,” [in:] Thick Concepts, S. Kirchin (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1−19.
Kivy P. (1973), Speaking of Art, M. Nijhoff, The Hague.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2412-9
Kölbel M. (2003), “Faultless Disagreement,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1): 53−73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9264.t01-1-00003
Kompa N. (2016), “Faultless Disagreement, Context Sensitivity, and the Semantics of Evaluation,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 93 (3): 396−418.
Kosmeyer C. (1999), Making Sense of Taste: Food and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, New York.
Kosmeyer C. (2007), “Delightful, Delicious, Disgusting,” [in:] Food and Philosophy: Eat, Think and Be Merry, F. Allhoff, D. Monroe (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: 145−161.
Lasersohn P.N. (2005), “Context Dependence, Disagreement and Predicates of Personal Taste,” Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (6): 643−686.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x
Liao S., Meskin A. (2017), “Aesthetic Adjectives: Experimental Semantics and Context-Sensitivity,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94 (2): 371−398.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12217
MacFarlane J. (2007), “Relativism and Disagreement,” Philosophical Studies 132 (1): 17−31.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9049-9
MacFarlane J. (2014), Assessment-Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications, Oxford University Press, New York.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682751.001.0001
Machery E., Mallon R., Nichols S. et al. (2004), “Semantics, Cross-Cultural Style,” Cognition 92 (3): B1−B12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.003
Mallon R., Machery E., Nichols S. et al. (2009), “Against Arguments from Reference,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2): 332−356.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00281.x
McNally L., Stojanovic I. (2017), “Aesthetic adjectives,” [in:] Semantics of Aesthetic Judgments, J.O. Young (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York: 17−37.
Plato (2002), Phaedo, trans. D. Gallop, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Plunkett D., Sundell T. (2013), “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms,” Philosopher’s Imprint 13 (23): 1–37.
Plunkett D. (2015), “Which Concepts Should We Use? Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 58 (7–8): 828−874.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184
Rovane C. (2012), “How to Formulate Relativism,” [in:] Mind, Meaning, and Knowledge: Themes From the Philosophy of Crispin Wright, A. Coliva, C. Wright (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 17−31.
Sibley F. (1959), “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review 68 (4): 421−450.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2182490
Sibley F. (1965), “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic,” Philosophical Review 74 (2): 35−159.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183262
Sibley F. (2001), “Particularity, Art, and Evaluation,” [in:] Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics, J. Benson, B. Redfern, J.R. Cox (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York: 88−103.
Stojanovic I. (2007), “Talking about Taste: Disagreement, Implicit Arguments, and Relative Truth,” Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6): 691−706.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9030-5
Sundell T. (2011), “Disagreements about Taste,” Philosophical Studies 155 (2): 267−288.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9572-6
Sundell T. (2016), “The Tasty, the Bold, and the Beautiful,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 59 (6): 793−818.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2016.1208918
Sundell T. (2017), “Aesthetic Negotiation,” [in:] Semantics of Aesthetic Judgments, J.O. Young (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York: 82−105.
Sweeney K.W. (2007), “Can a Soup Be Beautiful? The Rise of Gastronomy and the Aesthetics of Food,” [in:] Food and Philosophy: Eat, Think and Be Merry, F. Allhof, D. Monroe (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: 117−132.
Williams B. (1985), Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Wyatt J. (2018), “Absolutely Tasty: An Examination of Predicates of Personal Taste and Faultless Disagreement,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 61 (3): 252−280.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1402700