Abstract
The claim that having aesthetic properties supervenes on having non-aesthetic properties has been widely discussed and, in various ways, defended. In this article, I aim to demonstrate that even if it is sometimes true that a supervenience relation holds between aesthetic properties and ‘subvenient’ non-aesthetic ones, it is not the interesting relation in the neighbourhood. As we shall see, a richer, asymmetric, and irreflexive relation is required, and I shall defend the claim that the increasingly popular relation of grounding does amuch better job than supervenience.
Highlights
The claim that having aesthetic properties supervenes on having non-aesthetic properties has been widely discussed and, in various ways, defended
I aim to demonstrate that even if it is sometimes true that a supervenience relation holds between aesthetic properties and ‘subvenient’ non-aesthetic ones, it is not the interesting relation in the neighbourhood
I aim to show that even if it is sometimes true that a supervenience relation holds between aesthetic properties and the ‘subvenient’ non-aesthetic ones, it is not the interesting relation in the neighbourhood
Summary
The claim that having aesthetic properties supervenes on having non-aesthetic properties has been widely discussed and, in various ways, defended. For instance, defends this claim,3 and so does, famously, Levinson: ‘aesthetic attributes of an object are supervenient on its non-aesthetic ones.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.