Hepburn’s Natural Aesthetic and Its Implications for Aesthetic Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world is rich in natural beauty, and learning how to appreciate the beauty of nature is an important part of aesthetic education. Unfortunately, the teaching of aesthetics is usually restricted to art education, especially in Taiwan. Students’ perceptual awareness of and sensitivity to the aesthetics of nature should be cultivated so that their lives may be enriched and their awareness of environmental issues may be raised. How the aesthetics of nature can be taught effectively remains a question. However, research in the contemporary aesthetics of nature provides insightful discussions and directions. This paper investigates the insights of aesthetician R. Hepburn and their implications for aesthetic education. Hepburn suggests that metaphysical meaning can be revealed by imagination in nature. According to this metaphysical model of the imagination, the essence of the “reality” of nature ought to be contemplated. We can imagine the meaning of life and experience a sense of oneness with nature, a co-presence of opposites, as well as sublimity and infinity by appreciating the beauty of nature. Accordingly, this paper discusses three implications for aesthetic education: 1) To teach students how to appreciate natural beauty should be included in aesthetic education; 2) To rich meanings of life by imagination in natural appreciation; and 3) To apply the metaphysical imagination model to teach students an appreciation of nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".