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 Business Groups in the West by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Brief Dynamic Interpersonal Therapy by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book A Supplementary Dictionary of Sports Personalities by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Sleep, Health, and Society by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book A Gentle Creature and Other Stories by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Journalism: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Identifying the Enemy by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Bad Medicine by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book The Normativity of Nature by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Bank Resolution: The European Regime by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Origins of the Colonnaded Streets in the Cities of the Roman East by Peter Kivy
Cover of the book Modern Perspectives in Lattice QCD: Quantum Field Theory and High Performance Computing 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