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.