Scholarlink

<p>Sosa holds one may rationally want to understand how the specific features of a particular artwork ground its aesthetic value, and that this understanding cannot be gained at second-hand. Such understanding requires one to have insight into the link between grounding features and that value, and this can only be gained through first-hand engagement with the artwork. I distinguish two senses of second-hand. In one sense Sosa is correct that one cannot understand why P at second-hand: one must have insight oneself into the link between explanans and explanandum, and this is an exercise of one’s own mental power. But this allows another sense in which understanding may be gained at second-hand, via a description of an artwork provided to one through testimony. I argue that an expert can attain understanding of how key features of an artwork ground its aesthetic value from a suitably rich description of it. Sosa has misidentified the epistemic good that can only be obtained from first-hand engagement with an artwork. This is not understanding of what makes it good, but an enjoyable episode of aesthetic appreciation of it.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Can one understand explanations of aesthetic value via testimony? Exploration of an issue from Sosa Epistemic Explanations Ch.1

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月17日

查看全文
  • Elizabeth Fricker

摘要

Sosa holds one may rationally want to understand how the specific features of a particular artwork ground its aesthetic value, and that this understanding cannot be gained at second-hand. Such understanding requires one to have insight into the link between grounding features and that value, and this can only be gained through first-hand engagement with the artwork. I distinguish two senses of second-hand. In one sense Sosa is correct that one cannot understand why P at second-hand: one must have insight oneself into the link between explanans and explanandum, and this is an exercise of one’s own mental power. But this allows another sense in which understanding may be gained at second-hand, via a description of an artwork provided to one through testimony. I argue that an expert can attain understanding of how key features of an artwork ground its aesthetic value from a suitably rich description of it. Sosa has misidentified the epistemic good that can only be obtained from first-hand engagement with an artwork. This is not understanding of what makes it good, but an enjoyable episode of aesthetic appreciation of it.