Summary
Diploma thesis ‘Aesthetic properties in analytic aesthetics – ontological and semantic
analysis’ is concerned with the semantics and ontology of aesthetic properties in analytic
aesthetics.
In ontology, problems concerning the existence of aesthetic properties are investigated,
namely if they are independent of human beings, where in the world are aesthetic properties
present, what relationship do they have to other properties and in what sense are they special.
The main ontological category in this work is the existence of aesthetic properties. In
semantics, problems of meaning of aesthetic expressions and concepts are investigated, how
are they related to the world and if aesthetic judgements can be true. The main semantic
category is truth. Transparent intentional logic is used as a helpful instrument for analysis of
natural language expressions. This instrument allows one to discern between denotation and
reference, between the meanings of aesthetic expressions and between what they designate in
the world.
The aim of the thesis is to describe the different philosophical positions in analytic aesthetics
and to assign their advocates, depending on how they answer a set of classifying questions.
These questions are as follows:
1. Where are aesthetic properties?
2. Do aesthetic properties exist independently of observers?
3. Are aesthetic properties accessible via the senses?
4. Are aesthetic properties natural properties?
5. Are aesthetic properties reducible to (by?) other properties?
6. Do aesthetic judgments express beliefs?
7. What is the reference of aesthetic expressions?
The next step is to state the argument both for and against it (what? Please specify what ‘it’
refers to here). The chapter of every position is closed by comparison of the position with all
the previous positions stated in the thesis (? This doesn’t make much sense and I’m unsure of
what you are trying to say here). The final product presents mapping of different
philosophical positions in analytical aesthetics, which are concerned with aesthetic properties.
The basic structure of the thesis is based on historical development of debates about aesthetic
properties in analytic aesthetics. Frank Sibley is considered to be the first philosopher
explicitly concerned with the subject of aesthetic expressions and properties. His work and
ideas form the main conceptual framework of the thesis, as well as a point of reference for
other positions. Also, the order of upcoming positions is not arbitrary; they are introduced as
they are closely related to previous positions. The relation is based on objections to previous
positions; even if a new position can solve the problems of a previous position, the new
position is again vulnerable to new objections itself. These objections are usually treated by
the next position, but again, new objections arise for the next position as well. The important
point in this regard is to return to non-naturalism in the last chapter of main body. In this
chapter, Eddy Zemach responds to previous objections for non-naturalism and underlines
weaknesses of competing positions. The main lesson here is that no position is definitely
surpassed, not even refuted. Arguments to support each position can be perfected indefinitely,
as well as arguments against competing positions. Arguments often become complex and
multi-layered. In this work, only the basic layer of the arguments for and against each position
is presented, without following the entire line of each argument.
The results gained by comparative analysis are a part from the main text presented in the three
appendices. In the first appendix, results are graphically illustrated. Basic characteristics about
ontology (realism x antirealism) and semantics (cognitivism x non-cognitivism) are illustrated
using graphs. Based on the data gained, the positions are symbolized on the scale. The graphs
are meant to compare the positions visually. In the second appendix, short answers to seven
questions are presented by each position. Names of philosophers who appeared in the main
text are assigned to the positions. In the third appendix, examples of colloquial language are
presented, as the current language about aesthetic properties would be translated into them
(translated into what? What does ‘them’ refer to? You need to specify), to reflect the thought
behind it. The aim of this appendix is to show what an ideal language would look like if the
surface structure of aesthetic properties talk would reflect the deep structure (? Re-think this
sentence – it doesn’t make sense). In the current language, the surface structure doesn’t reflect
the deep structure, as was shown in the comparisons of positions.
Philosophical positions analysed in the thesis are - non-naturalism, emotivism, error theory,
dispositionalism, quasi-realism, subjectivism and naturalism. Other positions are sometimes
mentioned without deeper analysis.
Non-naturalism is presented in Sibley’s text ‘Aesthetic Concepts’ and Eddy Zemach’s
publication ‘Real Beauty’. It is a philosophical position, according to which aesthetic
properties exist independently of human beings. Aesthetic properties are real properties of
things, which are autonomous, not recognizable by natural sciences and not reducible to nonaesthetic properties; they are not accessible by mere senses, but only with special sensibility
taste. Aesthetic judgments express beliefs and have truth conditions based on aesthetic facts
independent of human beings. Aesthetic expressions refer directly to aesthetic properties.
Emotivism is presented in Hume’s text ‘On the Standard of Taste and publication of A. Ayer
Language, Truth and Logic’. It is a philosophical position, according to which aesthetic
properties do not exist at all; they are not a part of the natural world. According to emotivism,
only those things exist which can be known by natural sciences, and aesthetic properties are
not one of them. Things are said to have only those properties, which can be described by
empirical science. Emotions are the cause of illusion of aesthetic properties. Aesthetic
judgments do not express beliefs, but emotions and attitudes of the beholders; therefore,
aesthetic judgments cannot be true or false. Aesthetic expressions do not refer to properties of
things and do not describe the world; they can only refer to the beholder’s emotions at most.
Error theory is presented in J. Mackie’s publication ‘Inventing Right and Wrong’. It is a
philosophical position, according to which aesthetic properties do not exist. Aesthetic
concepts are thought to be objective, normative and prescriptive. Anything like this cannot
exist in the world. Aesthetic properties can only exist as natural and descriptive properties,
which would make them ordinary properties, as are non-aesthetic properties. According to
error theory, normativity and objectivity is essential for aesthetics. Every ascription of
aesthetic property is therefore, mistaken and every positive aesthetic judgment is necessarily
wrong. Aesthetic expressions attempt to refer to real properties of object, but they are not able
to and are empty, because there are no aesthetic properties in the world.
Dispositionalism is presented in N. Zangwill’s text ‘Metaphysics of Aesthetic and Sensory
Properties’. It is a philosophical position, according to which aesthetic properties are
relational properties. Aesthetic properties are dependent on human beings, because they are
co-created by humans. They are not present in things; in things there are only dispositions.
Aesthetic properties originate as combinations of dispositions in things, sensory apparatus and
suitable external conditions for perception. Aesthetic properties are a paradigmatic example of
secondary properties. They are phenomenal properties, not recognizable by empirical science
and not reducible to non-aesthetic properties. Aesthetic judgments can be true and false, but
not in virtue of external aesthetic facts. Truth value of aesthetic judgments is co-created by
humans.
Quasi-realism is presented in S. Blackburn’s work ‘Essays in Quasi-realism’. It is a
philosophical position, according to which aesthetic properties don’t exist in the world by
them (by what? Specify ‘them’), but are projected onto the world by people. They exist in
things only as fictional entities. They are not independent of observers, but are literally
created by them. Accessible to the senses are only natural properties of things. Natural
properties are responsible for the projection of aesthetic properties onto thing. Taste is what
enables the projection. Further generalizations enable constructions of aesthetic standards,
which change depending on place, time and situation. Aesthetic judgments can be true or
false, but not absolutely, in virtue of independent aesthetic facts. They can be true only inside
some aesthetic standard. Aesthetic expressions refer to what is projected onto things as well as
what is correct by some aesthetic standards.
Naturalism is the only position which is not presented within one main text, but more as a
general philosophical position. Many philosophers, who are naturalists, are mentioned, but no
text is used exclusively. However, the main protagonist of naturalism in analytic aesthetics is
G. Sircello and his work ‘New Theory of Beauty’. It is a philosophical position, according to
which aesthetic properties exist independently of people. They are objective properties of
things. According to reductive naturalism, aesthetic properties are reducible to a bundle of
natural properties. According to non-reductive naturalism, no such reduction is possible. In
both cases, aesthetic properties are properties recognizable by empirical science. Aesthetics is
not considered as autonomous discipline. Aesthetic properties as natural are accessible to the
senses. Aesthetic judgments express beliefs and can be true or false. They are true in virtue of
independent aesthetic facts. Aesthetic expressions refer to aesthetic properties and represent
the world.
Subjectivism is presented in the work of R. Scruton, How to understand as it relates to Kant’s
Critique of Judgment (? Is this the whole title of Scruton’s work? This sentence doesn’t make
sense). It is a philosophical position, according to which aesthetic properties do not exist in
the world because they are present only inside of the beholder. This implies that they are
completely dependent on people, in things there are no such properties. Scruton describes
aesthetic properties as tertiary, meaning they are not accessible by the senses but only by
active cognitive effort, using fantasy as well as reflection. According to Scruton, aesthetic
judgments do not express beliefs because they are metaphors. They do not have truth values
in the literal sense, in virtue of aesthetic facts. They can be only correct or incorrect, apt or
inapt. According to standard subjectivism aesthetic judgments express beliefs. They are
descriptive; however, their truth value is dependent on people. Aesthetic judgment is true if
the subject believes in it and is wrong, if he does not believe it. Aesthetic expressions work as
metaphors and therefore refer to special aesthetic imaginative experience according to
Scruton.
The existence of aesthetic properties in current debates concerning analytic aesthetics is not a
solved problem. It is a controversial topic, to which many diverse and incompatible views are
presented by current philosophers. Two main branches of opinions about the existence of
aesthetic properties are realism and anti-realism. They are presented as a rough framework in
this work, because described positions are mostly somewhere between these two boundaries,
as is the case with dispositionalism or quasi-realism - the division between realism and
antirealism is not sharp. Only non-naturalism, naturalism and expressivism are authentic
representatives of realism, respectively anti-realism.
In the pursuit of describing ontology of aesthetic properties, philosophers are mostly
concerned with two characteristic points. The first is defining the relationship between
aesthetic and non-aesthetic properties; the second is defining the dependence of aesthetic
properties on the human mind. It is difficult to choose which position provides the best
solutions to presented problems, as every solution fulfils different intuitive demands. Realistic
stances prefer objectivity of aesthetic properties and their independence of the human mind,
anti-realism accents subjective side of aesthetic experience (Re-think, this sentence doesn’t
make sense). The positions between realism and anti-realism are looking for compromises
which would satisfy both rational intuitions.
As analysed positions testify, truth is also an issue which has many degrees. Aesthetic
judgments are sometimes considered to be equal with empirical judgments, whose truth value
is verifiable by objective means. In other cases, truth of aesthetic judgments is co-created by
people or is dependent upon created aesthetic standards. Aesthetic judgments are sometimes
thought to be sentences without truth values, which can be correct or incorrect, apt or inapt..
Even here, it is difficult to decide which stance, with regards to aesthetic judgments, is best at
reflecting the majority or the strongest of intuitions. However, the least plausible seems to be
one of the extreme positions. According to first one (first one of what? Specify) aesthetic
judgments are uninformative and function only to vent emotions. According to the second
(Second what? Again – specify), aesthetic judgments are the same as factual sentences about
the world, whose truth value is entirely independent of people and therefore, absolutely
independent of actual aesthetic experience.
Even from this short summary it is evident that opinions on aesthetic properties in analytic
aesthetics are diverse. Neither of these positions is dominant and every one of them has its
advantages and disadvantages. Even in folk aesthetics, everyday thinking about objects of art
and nature, there are opposing intuitions. Taste is considered to be subjective, because
everybody can like something else as well as objective, because it can be cultivated (Re-think,
this sentence doesn’t make sense, and I’m unsure of what you’re trying to say). Some
artworks are considered to be better than others, while everybody can have his or her own
favourite artwork regardless of its quality. People can evaluate things as well as describe or
display their emotions through aesthetic judgments. Aesthetic judgments have the same form
as typical descriptive claims, yet they are sometimes delivered as mere opinions or appraisals.
Aspiration to satisfy every rational intuition seems to be impossible, some of them being in
contradiction.
In spite of not being able to choose the best position among the compared and categorized
positions, the thesis provides positive and constructive findings. The results of analysis
undertaken, can be used as a useful instrument in other research areas inside analytic
aesthetics. They are easily used as helpful tools in topics not concerned with aesthetic
properties and concepts. To mention just a few, these are definition of art, ontology of
artwork, artistic and aesthetic value, possibility of expertise in aesthetics, interpretation of
artworks, artistic standards and taste. It is possible to define art with natural, emotivist and
subjectivist, as well as dispositionalist, language. Philosophical positions introduced in this
thesis form broader frameworks that can be applied to many different topics after some
modifications. They present ways of attending phenomena and can be changed according to
needs as lenses (according to needs as lenses?).
This thesis shows that no attitude to aesthetic phenomena from inside concrete position is
unproblematic and obvious. Mere appreciation of multitude incompatible intuitions and
positions that are based on them can help to disenchant phenomena of aesthetic properties. It
is difficult to choose the best or the right position solely through rational argumentation.
Every position can reliably defend its advantages and challenge the disadvantages of
alternative positions. It is therefore important not to linger only within philosophical solutions
and philosophical argumentation. Philosophers should turn their attention to other fields of
studies as well, for better support of their own intuitions and opinions. The phenomena, with
which aesthetics is concerned, do not have to be solely in competence of aesthetics as an
autonomous discipline. Every new attitude to a complex topic, that are without a doubt also
aesthetic phenomena, contributes, by degree, to its better understanding. This was exactly the
case in past with issues like perception, where biological, psychological and sociological
studies were incorporated into aesthetic theory (Debellis, 1998). The future of aesthetics as a
fruitful scientific discipline engaged with the important domain of human life, therefore lies in
successful interdisciplinary collaboration.
1. When you are talking about this thesis make sure you use is and not was – the thesis is not a past
and finshed action, so you need to use the present tense.
2. There is an over use of the word position throughout the text and you need to use a different
noun when possible – vary it a little.
3. It seems as if this text has not originally been written and thus expressed using English language
and thus, English terms, but instead, has been directly translated from Czech to English, possibly
using a translation tool, this makes texts hard to read and interupts the potential fluency.
4. You need to develop your use of more complex sentences – this would improve the fluency of the
text and thus make it easier and more interesting to read, as, as it stands, it feels very disjointed. Try
using conjunctions and discourse markers to link your sentences and ideas.
5. When you use the word projection it is always used with the preposition on or onto.
6. Review your use of articles.
7. Make sure you are consistent with the way you present things – if you are going to italicize and
place in inverted commmas one book title, then you need to do the same with all the others.
8. Pay attention to the places where I’ve asked you to specify what you are talking about. Using it
and them in place of the noun in this way means that the reading has no idea what you are referring
to and thus, meaning is lost.