Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter (A) September 18, 2021

Der Urteilsbegriff und Wissen aus zweiter Hand in der Ästhetik

  • Jochen Briesen


Although the concept of judgment has been replaced by the concept of belief in many philosophical subdisciplines, it has retained its central role in aesthetics. This paper discusses the following explanation for this: In contrast to the concept of belief, the concept of judgment presupposes conscious and first-personal engagement with the object about which the judgment is being made, and this conscious and first-personal engagement with the object in question plays a more important role in aesthetics than in other domains.


Briesen, J. (2020), Ästhetische Urteile und ästhetische Eigenschaften, Frankfurt am Main.10.5771/9783465144281Search in Google Scholar

Garcia-Carpintiero, M. (2007), A Non-modal Conception of Secondary Properties, in: Philosophical Papers 36.1, 1–33.10.1080/05568640709485191Search in Google Scholar

Johnston, M. (1992), How to Speak of the Colors, in: Philosophical Studies 68, 139–174.10.1007/BF00694847Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. (2009), Kritik der Urteilskraft [1790], Hamburg.10.28937/978-3-7873-2069-1Search in Google Scholar

Robson, J. (2012), Aesthetic Testimony, in: Philosophy Compass 7.1, 1–10.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00455.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sibley, F. (1959), Aesthetic Concepts, in: The Philosophical Review 68, 421–450.10.2307/2182490Search in Google Scholar

Walton, K. (1970), Categories of Art, in: The Philosophical Review 79, 334–367.10.4324/9781315303673-102Search in Google Scholar

Wedgewood, R. (1998), The Essence of Response-Dependence, in: European Review of Philosophy 3, 31–54.Search in Google Scholar

Wollheim, R. (1980), Art and its Objects, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781316286777Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-09-18
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 7.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button