Philosophical Studies

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 553–563 | Cite as

A Note on the Aesthetics of Mirror Reversal

  • Rafael De Clercq
Article

Abstract

According to Roy Sorensen [Philosophical Studies 100 (2000) 175–191] an object cannot differ aesthetically from its mirror image. On his view, mirror-reversing an object – changing its left/right orientation – cannot bring about any aesthetic change. However, in arguing for this thesis Sorensen assumes that aesthetic properties supervene on intrinsic properties alone. This is a highly controversial assumption and nothing is offered in its support. Moreover, a plausible weakening of the assumption does not improve the argument. Finally, Sorensen’s second argument is shown to be formally flawed. As a result, the case for the aesthetic irrelevancy of orientation seems still open.

Key words

aesthetic properties enantiomorphism incongruent counterparts mirror reversal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Budd M. (1995). Values of Art. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Budd M. (2002). The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Currie G. (1990). ‘Supervenience, Essentialism and Aesthetic Properties’. Philosophical Studies 58: 243–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Douven I. (1999). ‘Style and Supervenience’. British Journal of Aesthetics 39: 255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Earman J. (1989). World Enough and Space-Time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman A. (1990). ‘Aesthetic Qualities and Aesthetic Value’. The Journal of Philosophy 90: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Levinson J. (1990). Music, Art and Metaphysics. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Nerlich G. (1994). The Shape of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  10. Sorensen R. (2000). ‘The Aesthetics of Mirror Reversal’. Philosophical Studies 100: 175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sorensen R. (2002). ‘Mirror Imagery and Biological Selection’. Biology and Philosophy 17: 409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Walton K. (1970). ‘Categories of Art’. The Philosophical Review 79: 334–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael De Clercq
    • 1
  1. 1.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations