# Intelligible Beauty  ## Metadata - Author: [[James Shelley]] - Full Title: Intelligible Beauty - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Summary: Abstract. Arthur Danto argued from the premiss that artworks are essentially cognitive to the conclusion that they are incidentally aesthetic. I wonder why - URL: https://academic.oup.com/aristoteliansupp/article/96/1/147/6595523?login=true&guestAccessKey= ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > If we now ask how the power by which we find things beautiful—the power known in Hutcheson’s time as the *faculty of taste*—fits into this scheme, Hutcheson’s answer is that it operates with all the immediacy of external sense and all the internality of reason. Its immediacy is manifest in the fact that we do not infer or otherwise figure out that things are beautiful, but are rather struck all at once by their beauty. For Hutcheson, this consideration suffices to justify grouping the faculty of taste among the senses: ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcq1qkvc8vwe83wgyrcrgbf)) > If that’s right, vindicating the practice requires nothing less than an explanation of how an object that has no sensible properties has one, or, putting the point less paradoxically, it requires an explanation of how what we mean when we say that an object is purely intelligible is consistent with its being beautiful, given what we mean when we say that beauty is a sensible property. Hutcheson supplies that explanation, or so I shall argue. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcq18t064tpgvdkpm691ead))