In Defence of the One-Act View: Reply to Guyer

British Journal of Aesthetics 57 (4):421-435 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I defend my ‘one-act’ interpretation of Kant’s account of judgments of beauty against recent criticisms by Paul Guyer. Guyer’s text-based arguments for his own ‘two-acts’ view rely on the assumption that a claim to the universal validity of one’s pleasure presupposes the prior existence of the pleasure. I argue that pleasure in the beautiful claims its own universal validity, thus obviating the need to distinguish two independent acts of judging. The resulting view, I argue, is closer to the text and more phenomenologically plausible than Guyer’s two-acts alternative.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-10-05
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
43 ( #64,291 of 69,985 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #53,292 of 69,985 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.