<p>Artifact kinds have members—e.g., this and that chair—have normative properties—e.g., a chair is <i>supposed to be</i> sat upon—and they may change—e.g., pipe cleaners were used for cleaning smoking pipes, now they serve as craft materials (Carlson &amp; Parsons, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">2008</CitationRef>). A theory of artifact kinds should therefore satisfy these desiderata (KIND MEMBERSHIP, NORMATIVITY, CHANGE). This paper aims to raise an alternative anti-essentialist account about artifact kinds that can satisfy the desiderata. I first explain the distinction between essentialism and anti-essentialism about artifacts, situating the proposed account in the anti-essentialist terrain. I then refine the pluralistic anti-essentialist account (PAA) by adopting Kendall Walton’s distinction between standard, contra-standard, and variable properties. By adopting Walton’s distinctions to all artifact kinds, I show that PAA can satisfy each desideratum.</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

From categories of art to categories of artifact

  • Alper Güngör

摘要

Artifact kinds have members—e.g., this and that chair—have normative properties—e.g., a chair is supposed to be sat upon—and they may change—e.g., pipe cleaners were used for cleaning smoking pipes, now they serve as craft materials (Carlson & Parsons, 2008). A theory of artifact kinds should therefore satisfy these desiderata (KIND MEMBERSHIP, NORMATIVITY, CHANGE). This paper aims to raise an alternative anti-essentialist account about artifact kinds that can satisfy the desiderata. I first explain the distinction between essentialism and anti-essentialism about artifacts, situating the proposed account in the anti-essentialist terrain. I then refine the pluralistic anti-essentialist account (PAA) by adopting Kendall Walton’s distinction between standard, contra-standard, and variable properties. By adopting Walton’s distinctions to all artifact kinds, I show that PAA can satisfy each desideratum.