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

British Journal of Aesthetics 57 (4):421-435 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Author's Profile

Hannah Ginsborg
University of California, Berkeley

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-11-16

Downloads
276 (#50,693)

6 months
94 (#36,728)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?