De Gustibus
Arguing About Taste and Why We Do It
- Publisher's listprice GBP 61.00
-
27 541 Ft (26 230 Ft + 5% VAT)
The price is estimated because at the time of ordering we do not know what conversion rates will apply to HUF / product currency when the book arrives. In case HUF is weaker, the price increases slightly, in case HUF is stronger, the price goes lower slightly.
- Discount 10% (cc. 2 754 Ft off)
- Discounted price 24 787 Ft (23 607 Ft + 5% VAT)
Subcribe now and take benefit of a favourable price.
Subscribe
27 541 Ft
Availability
printed on demand
Why don't you give exact delivery time?
Delivery time is estimated on our previous experiences. We give estimations only, because we order from outside Hungary, and the delivery time mainly depends on how quickly the publisher supplies the book. Faster or slower deliveries both happen, but we do our best to supply as quickly as possible.
Product details:
- Publisher OUP Oxford
- Date of Publication 22 October 2015
- ISBN 9780198746782
- Binding Hardback
- No. of pages188 pages
- Size 222x149x16 mm
- Weight 364 g
- Language English 0
Categories
Short description:
Peter Kivy deals with a question that has never been fully addressed by philosophers of art: why do we argue about art? If I think Bach is greater than Beethoven and you think the opposite, why should it matter to either of us? He claims that we argue over taste because we think, mistakenly or not, that we are arguing over matters of fact.
MoreLong description:
In De Gustibus Peter Kivy deals with a question that has never been fully addressed by philosophers of art: why do we argue about art? We argue about the 'facts' of the world either to influence people's behaviour or simply to get them to see what we take to be the truth about the world. We argue over ethical matters, if we are ethical 'realists,' because we think we are arguing about 'facts' in the world. And we argue about ethics, if we are 'emotivists,' or are now what are called 'expressionists,' which is to say, people who think matters of ethics are simply matters of 'attitude,' to influence the behaviour of others. But why should we argue about works of art? There are no 'actions' we wish to motivate. Whether I think Bach is greater than Beethoven and you think the opposite, why should it matter to either of us to convince the other? This is a question that philosophers have never faced. Kivy claims here that we argue over taste because we think, mistakenly or not, that we are arguing over matters of fact.
Peter Kivy's defence of aesthetic realism is to argue that it is incoherent to be an error theorist and still engage in aesthetic disputes.
Table of Contents:
Hume's Dilemma
A Ground Common to All
The Beautiful Versus the Good
Simple Emotivism
Do So As Well!
The Aesthetic Shrug
Immoral Art
Is Bad Taste Immoral?
Push-Pin and Poetry
Back to Square One
The Right Phenomenology?
The Truth of Interpretation
The Truth of Analysis
The Truth of Evaluation
Common Sense and the Error Theory
Bibliography
