De Gustibus

Arguing About Taste and Why We Do It

Nonfiction, Religion & Spirituality, Philosophy, Aesthetics, Art & Architecture, General Art
Cover of the book De Gustibus by Peter Kivy, OUP Oxford
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Peter Kivy ISBN: 9780191063756
Publisher: OUP Oxford Publication: October 22, 2015
Imprint: OUP Oxford Language: English
Author: Peter Kivy
ISBN: 9780191063756
Publisher: OUP Oxford
Publication: October 22, 2015
Imprint: OUP Oxford
Language: English

In De Gustibus Peter Kivy deals with a question that has never been fully addressed by philosophers of art: why do we argue about art? We argue about the 'facts' of the world either to influence people's behaviour or simply to get them to see what we take to be the truth about the world. We argue over ethical matters, if we are ethical 'realists,' because we think we are arguing about 'facts' in the world. And we argue about ethics, if we are 'emotivists,' or are now what are called 'expressionists,' which is to say, people who think matters of ethics are simply matters of 'attitude,' to influence the behaviour of others. But why should we argue about works of art? There are no 'actions' we wish to motivate. Whether I think Bach is greater than Beethoven and you think the opposite, why should it matter to either of us to convince the other? This is a question that philosophers have never faced. Kivy claims here that we argue over taste because we think, mistakenly or not, that we are arguing over matters of fact.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

In De Gustibus Peter Kivy deals with a question that has never been fully addressed by philosophers of art: why do we argue about art? We argue about the 'facts' of the world either to influence people's behaviour or simply to get them to see what we take to be the truth about the world. We argue over ethical matters, if we are ethical 'realists,' because we think we are arguing about 'facts' in the world. And we argue about ethics, if we are 'emotivists,' or are now what are called 'expressionists,' which is to say, people who think matters of ethics are simply matters of 'attitude,' to influence the behaviour of others. But why should we argue about works of art? There are no 'actions' we wish to motivate. Whether I think Bach is greater than Beethoven and you think the opposite, why should it matter to either of us to convince the other? This is a question that philosophers have never faced. Kivy claims here that we argue over taste because we think, mistakenly or not, that we are arguing over matters of fact.

More books from OUP Oxford

Cover of the book Philosophy Within Its Proper Bounds by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Mandela by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Humour: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Phaedrus by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Italian Literature: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book A Dictionary of Chinese Literature by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Damages Under the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Human Rights in Times of Conflict and Terrorism by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Philosophy Bites Again by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Reconceptualizing Development in the Global Information Age by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Principles of Electron Tunneling Spectroscopy by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Understanding "I" by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Oxford Handbook of Clinical Examination and Practical Skills by Peter Kivy
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy