ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I consider the view that some aesthetic judgments about nature and natural objects (e.g., “The Grand Tetons are majestic”) are appropriate, correct, or perhaps simply true; while others (e.g., “The Grand Tetons are dumpy”) are inappropriate, incorrect, or perhaps simply false. If one accepts some such view, one discovers that the opposition falls into two clearly distinguishable groups. On the one hand, there are those who hold that such views are untenable concerning aesthetic judgments in general, whether a judgment be about nature or about artwhether it be “The Grand Tetons are majestic” or “Donatello’s David is dumpy.” Such objectors often hold some version of a subjectivist, a relativist, and/or a noncognitivist view about all so-called aesthetic judgments. On the other hand, there are those who reject these latter views concerning aesthetic judgments about art, but have serious reservations about rejecting them concerning such judgments about nature. These objectors readily admit and often defend the view that a statement such as, for example, “Guernica is dynamic” is appropriate, correct, or true, but find a statement such as “The Grand Tetons are majestic” somewhat worrisome-at least in their theoretical moments, if not in their actual practice. The remarks of this chapter are addressed to only the latter group of objectors. To consider the issues raised by the former group would require not only a much more substantial investigation, but also one with an essentially different focus.
