kuuluva nähtusega. esteetiline kogemus, esteetiline väärtus, esteetiline nauding, esteetiline elamus, esteetiline omadus. (...nagu oleks vähe:/) 10. Milles seisneb E-hoiaku hedooniline õigustamine? Hedooniline õigustamine: Vana kr. hdon `nauding'; ,,miks inimesed tahavad kontempleerida kunstiteost kontempleerimise enese pärast? ... Vastus on muidugi see, et me saame sellest tegevusest heameelt, rahuldust, naudingut." Nicholas Wolterstorff (1997: 37-38): Briti filosoofi Roger Scrutoni järgi on objekti nautimise taotlus koguni E-hoiaku üheks tarvilikuks tingimuseks. NB! Esteetikud vaidlevad selle üle, mis eristab esteetilist naudingut mitte-esteetilisest naudingust. 11. Millised on naudingu kaks peamist allikat E-hoiaku puhul? Naudingu allika määratlemise küsimus: Kas nauding tuleneb ... a.E-hoiaku objektist (nt objekti olemuse tunnetamisest (vt episteemiline õigustamine) , või ... b.E-hoiaku välistavast
stated here? 2 Are objections 1 and 2 entirely fair, or are there plausible replies that the referential theorist might make? Further reading · Probably the most persistent critic of the Referential Theory is Wittgenstein (1953: Part I). A more systematic Wittgensteinian attack is found in Waismann (1965a: ch. 8). · Arguments of the sort lying behind objection 3 are found in Frege (1892/1952a) and (1892/1952b). · Bradley's regress is further discussed by Wolterstorff (1970: ch. 4) and by Loux (1998: ch. 1). Part I Reference and referring 2 Definite descriptions Overview Even if the Referential Theory of Meaning does not hold for all words, one might think it would apply at least to singular terms (terms that purport to refer to single individuals, such as proper names, pronouns, and definite descriptions). But Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell argued powerfully that definite descriptions, at least, do not mean what they mean in virtue of
annaabi.ee 
