Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this paper I explore the following threefold question: first, is there a genuine problem of grounding aesthetic judgement in testimony? Second, if there is such a problem, what exactly is its nature? And lastly, can Kant help us get clearer on the problem? Following Kant, I argue that the problem with aesthetic testimony is explained by norms that govern what it takes to judge a beautiful object aesthetically, rather than theoretically or practically, not by norms that govern what it takes to judge aesthetically with a sufficient epistemic basis rather than without it. I thus propose a normative and aesthetic approach to testimony.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keren Gorodeisky (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: