system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is literary anti-cognitivism a seriously held position among professional philosophers?

I've recently been reading about literary cognitivism and what I've found is that most (actually all) the papers I have been able to find online have been in support of the cognitivist position. I think I'm quite strongly in the anti-cognitivist camp, but because of the above, I'm worried that this view may not be taken seriously. 

The impression I get is that anti-cognitivism is sort of like radical skepticism in epistomology. That is, anticognitivism acts more like a foil for people to explore the question of what we can actually learn from literature, rather than a serious position people actually hold. I think the reason I get this impression is that in the articles I've read, it's often taken for granted that the reader will agree that literature *seems* to have some cognitive value, and it's only the task of the article to explain what this cognitive value could plausibly be. I don't have this initial impression of literature's cognitive value, so I don't find this kind of argument particularly convincing (just because they don't seem to be written with people like me in mind).

I understand that my position would probably be quite radical to people who study literature, but I'm quite curious about what philosophers tend to think.
gpt
A common reason why someone might find a view that philosophers consider to be common sense to be unintuitive is that the philosophers have something different in mind than you do.  For instance in this case, what kind of cognitive value do you think literature doesn't have but you believe aestheticians believe it to have.