Metalinguistic Negotiations and Two Senses of Taste

Main Article Content

David Bordonaba-Plou
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0788-9733

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

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bordonaba-Plou, David. 2021. “Metalinguistic Negotiations and Two Senses of Taste”. Diametros 18 (67), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1459.
Section
Articles
Share |

References

Alexander J., Mallon R., Weinberg J.M. (2010), “Accentuate the Negative,” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2): 297−314.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Buekens F. (2011), “Faultless Disagreement, Assertions and the Affective-Expressive Dimension of Judgments of Taste,” Philosophia 39 (4): 637−655.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Burke E. (1990), A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Oxford University Press, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Cepollaro B., Stojanovic I. (2016), “Hybrid Evaluatives: In Defense of a Presuppositional Account,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 93 (3): 458−488.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

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
View in Google Scholar

Egan A. (2014), “There’s Something Funny About Comedy: A Case Study in Faultless Disagreement,” Erkenntnis 79 (1): 73−100.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Glanzberg M. (2007), “Context, Content, and Relativism,” Philosophical Studies 136 (1): 1−29.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Hegel G.W.F. (1988), Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, vol. I, T.M. Knox (ed.), Clarendon Press, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Hopkins R. (2009), “Taste,” [in:] A Companion to Aesthetics, S. Davies, K.M. Higgins, R. Hopkins et al. (eds.), Blackwell, Singapore: 554−556.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Kant I. (2007), Critique of Judgment, trans. J.C. Meredith, Oxford University Press, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005), “Scale Structure, Degree Modifi cation, and the Semantics of Gradable Adjectives,” Language 8 (2): 345−381.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kennedy C. (2007), “Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives,” Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (1): 1−45.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kirchin S. (2013), “Introduction: Thick and Thin Concepts,” [in:] Thick Concepts, S. Kirchin (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1−19.
View in Google Scholar

Kivy P. (1973), Speaking of Art, M. Nijhoff, The Hague.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kölbel M. (2003), “Faultless Disagreement,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1): 53−73.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Kompa N. (2016), “Faultless Disagreement, Context Sensitivity, and the Semantics of Evaluation,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 93 (3): 396−418.
View in Google Scholar

Kosmeyer C. (1999), Making Sense of Taste: Food and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, New York.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Lasersohn P.N. (2005), “Context Dependence, Disagreement and Predicates of Personal Taste,” Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (6): 643−686.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Liao S., Meskin A. (2017), “Aesthetic Adjectives: Experimental Semantics and Context-Sensitivity,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94 (2): 371−398.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

MacFarlane J. (2007), “Relativism and Disagreement,” Philosophical Studies 132 (1): 17−31.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

MacFarlane J. (2014), Assessment-Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications, Oxford University Press, New York.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Machery E., Mallon R., Nichols S. et al. (2004), “Semantics, Cross-Cultural Style,” Cognition 92 (3): B1−B12.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Mallon R., Machery E., Nichols S. et al. (2009), “Against Arguments from Reference,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2): 332−356.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

McNally L., Stojanovic I. (2017), “Aesthetic adjectives,” [in:] Semantics of Aesthetic Judgments, J.O. Young (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York: 17−37.
View in Google Scholar

Plato (2002), Phaedo, trans. D. Gallop, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar

Plunkett D., Sundell T. (2013), “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms,” Philosopher’s Imprint 13 (23): 1–37.
View in Google Scholar

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
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Sibley F. (1959), “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review 68 (4): 421−450.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Sibley F. (1965), “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic,” Philosophical Review 74 (2): 35−159.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Stojanovic I. (2007), “Talking about Taste: Disagreement, Implicit Arguments, and Relative Truth,” Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6): 691−706.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Sundell T. (2011), “Disagreements about Taste,” Philosophical Studies 155 (2): 267−288.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Sundell T. (2016), “The Tasty, the Bold, and the Beautiful,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 59 (6): 793−818.


DOI
View in Google Scholar

Sundell T. (2017), “Aesthetic Negotiation,” [in:] Semantics of Aesthetic Judgments, J.O. Young (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York: 82−105.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Williams B. (1985), Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Taylor & Francis, New York.
View in Google Scholar

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
View in Google Scholar