Madeline Martin-Seaver

How can we understand people—ourselves and others? Does this require a special form of understanding, different from how we understand non-human phenomena? In this paper, I develop a Beauvoirian-inspired proposal for answering these questions. This proposed account of understanding people lends some support to a long tradition, according to which, we don't understand people in the same way that we understand non-human natural phenomena insofar as understanding people (like literary works) requires an empathic, imaginative, simulationist, or interpretive form. Yet, the Beauvoirian view complicates and challenges this tradition by bringing out the irreducibly second-personal structure of understanding people. It also highlights its embodied and ethical character. In emphasizing these, the Beauvoirian account offers a welcome alternative to empathic views of understanding people (and of relating to literature) and contributes to our understanding of the second-person nexus. It also proposes a refreshing way of thinking about the ethical dimensions of epistemology.

What more do we need to fully appreciate perfumes, beyond considering them objects for aesthetic appreciation? My contention is that our appreciation of some perfumes would be largely incomplete, unless we acknowledged them as works of art. I defend the claim that some perfumes are works of art from the point of view of different definitions. Nick Zangwill's aesthetic definition makes it easy to defend the proposed claim, but is not very informative for the purposes of fully appreciating some perfumes. On the other hand, Jerrold Levinson's intentional‐historical definition and Dominic Lopes's approach to defining art make it more challenging to defend the proposed claim. I show that, even so, the challenge may be met. Moreover, the challenge is well worth engaging with, since tackling it uncovers features of some perfumes that are essential to their full appreciation.