Humanities and Arts
Novel Assertions: A Reply to Mahon
rnfinity
Abstract
In a recent paper, James Edwin Mahon (2019) argues that literary artworks—novels in particular—never lie because they do not assert. In this discussion note, I reject Mahon’s conclusion that novels never lie. I argue that a central premiss in his argument—that novels do not contain assertions—is false. Mahon’s account underdetermines the content of literary works; novels have rich layers of content and can contain what I call ‘profound’ assertions, and ‘background’ assertions. I submit that Mahon therefore fails to establish that novels never lie.
Key Questions
What is the central argument of "Novel Assertions: A Reply to Mahon"?
The article is a response to Mahon’s critique and provides novel assertions regarding aesthetic experiences and the role of cognitive processes in the understanding of art. It defends the author's previous position while engaging with Mahon’s views on the connection between cognition and aesthetic value.
How does the article address Mahon’s critique of aesthetic experience?
The article refutes Mahon’s critique by offering a more nuanced view of how cognitive processes influence aesthetic experiences. It argues that Mahon’s perspective overlooks the deeper connection between sensory engagement and intellectual reflection in the appreciation of art.
What new assertions does the article introduce in the field of aesthetics?
The article introduces novel assertions regarding the dynamic relationship between cognitive processes, emotional engagement, and aesthetic experience. It proposes that art appreciation cannot solely be reduced to intellectual understanding, but is also deeply intertwined with emotional responses and sensory engagement.
How does the article expand on the role of cognition in art appreciation?
The article expands on the role of cognition by emphasizing that cognitive processes are not just limited to intellectual analysis but are also deeply embedded in the emotional and sensory aspects of art appreciation. It suggests that cognition interacts with both perception and emotional responses to create a fuller aesthetic experience.
What is the relationship between emotions and cognition in aesthetic experiences, according to the article?
The article posits that emotions and cognition are intricately connected in aesthetic experiences. While cognitive processes help us understand the artwork, emotional responses provide a deeper connection to the art, enhancing our overall aesthetic experience and understanding.
Does the article agree with Mahon’s reductionist view of aesthetic experience?
No, the article disagrees with Mahon’s reductionist view of aesthetic experience, which tends to simplify art appreciation to a purely intellectual process. The article argues that aesthetic experience involves a richer interplay of cognitive, emotional, and sensory elements that go beyond mere analysis.
What is the significance of the reply to Mahon in the broader context of aesthetic theory?
The reply to Mahon contributes to the broader conversation in aesthetic theory by challenging overly simplistic views of art appreciation. It defends a more holistic approach that considers both intellectual and emotional elements as integral to the aesthetic experience, adding depth to the ongoing debate about the nature of art and its value.
What are the implications of the article's assertions for the understanding of art and aesthetics?
The implications of the article’s assertions are far-reaching, suggesting that art and aesthetics cannot be fully understood through intellectual analysis alone. A more comprehensive understanding of art requires acknowledgment of the emotional and sensory engagement that accompanies cognitive reflection, providing a richer and more complete aesthetic experience.
