Brady's Schema for Types of Views about the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature
Cognitivist | Cognitivist | Non-Cognitivist | Non-Cognitivist | |
What is the role of perception (sensuous surface), emotion, feeling, expressive qualities, imagination on the one hand, and thought, reflection. knowledge, intellect, beliefs, facts on the other | Knowledge is central to aes appreciation; essential for correct appreciation | Carlson: Just as knowledge of art history is essential to art appreciation, so is knowledge of natural history central to nature appreciation | Perception, emotion, feeling, imagination are central to aes appreciation |
Forwards immediate perceptual experience, and backgrounds knowledge (and denies knowledge is ever essential--what about Carroll?) |
General characterization of cognitivist vs non-cognitivist | More essentialist, monistic and object oriented | More pluralistic and subject oriented | ||
Brady placement of philosophers in cog non-cog camp: | Carlson | Rolston, Eaton | Saito (in between cog and non-cog?) | Hepburn, Berleant, Carroll?, Godlovitch |
How closely tied is aes appreciation to perception | Carlson grants that knowledge is relevant only if it bears on sense perception involved in aes appreciation(?) | Saito: Aes exp begins and ends with sensuous surface | ||
Role of science in aes appreciation | Carlson: Need science, yes | Rolston: Need both science knowledge and participatory experience/knowledge | Brady: Science is not necessary (wave example) | |
Is science a cultural story like myth? | Carlson: No. Science tells us what nature is like and we need that knowledge to properly appreciate it. | Saito: Science not free from cultural influences: It makes our observations of nature intelligible to us, but its stories are stories of natural objects own lives | ||
Can science enhance and/or distract from aes appreciation? | ||||
Monist or pluralist ? One or many relevant types of aes appreciation of nature? | Monists: Carlson | Most non-cogs are pluralists: Carroll, Hepburn, Saito (science relevant, but also "folk narratives" are relevant) , Hepburn | Non-cog who are monists in a sense: Berleant wants his approach to supplant others, though he accepts multiple bases for aes response to nature, including science; Godlovitch insists on his approach | |
Objectivity (letting the object be our guide) vs subjectivity (subject is our guide; extreme subjectivity involves fantasy, pleasure-seeking and trivializing responses) | Saito: appreciation of nature on its own terms, don't overly humanize nature | Berleant: Subject's emotions, beliefs, and memories determine aes response/judgment as much as does the env. appreciated. | ||
Is aes appreciation distinct from other types of appreciation and evaluation? | Brady: Yes, definitely. | |||
Relevance of moral concerns about nature to its aes appreciation. | Carlson: Yes | Saito: Morality is important in aes appreciation of nature, but it is not an aes issue. | Hepburn: Wants an aes response consistent with respect for nature, but not ground aes in ethical | |
Extent of DI (disinterestedness) | Kant's Traditional DI theory | Berleant's personal engagement rejects DI, detachment, distancing for total engagement with env appreciated | ||
Is env. appreciation distinct from art appreciation | Carlson: Yes and no. Different from landscape appreciation, but both have similar structure | Hepburn: Yes in many ways | Berleant: No special framework for aes appreciation of nature; both engagement view applies equally to nature and art | |
Better and worse aes responses or all equally valid? Both Cog and Non-Cog say some better and worse aes appreciation | Carlson: Correct and incorrect; appropriate or inappropriate | Hepburn: Serious versus trivial, deeper versus more superficial | "Post Modern View" says anything goes in aes appreciation. But even the most permissive Thomas Heyd allows for some criteria of more or less relevant information to aes appreciation. |