Question

4. Explain, compare, and contrast scientific cognitivism and non-cognitivism in regard to natural aesthetics. How would a proponent of each position explain our aesthetic appreciation when we view the Grand Canyon?

Answer 1

Those who tend to appreciate the natural beauty of anything in the environment may be using abstract consideration to do the same, however someone who have not appropriately engaged in the aesthetic appreciation will not appreciate the same content. The reason is that they require categories to fix the natural phenomena in them. Carlson has descibed this in the following quote: “To appropriately appreciate objects or landscapes in question [natural environments] aesthetically— to appreciate their grace, majesty, elegance, charm, cuteness, delicacy, or “disturbing weirdness” [of a tidal basin]- it is necessary to perceive them in their correct categories. This requires knowing what they are and knowing something about them--in the cases in question [perceiving a rorqual whale, a moose, a tidal basin], something of biology and geology. In general, it requires the knowledge given by the natural sciences.” (Carlson 2000, 90).Cognitivism suggests that changes in concepts and categories produces changes in perception. A scientific approach therefore will include scientific knowledge of natural environment including their concepts, principles and frameworks. Categories in perception therefore need t cosidered scientifically while appreciating any content in the environment This is essentially the difference between a cognitivistic approach and a non scientific, merely aesthetic one.