Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:58:58.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematicity and Symbolisation in Kant's Deduction of Judgements of Taste

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2019

Alexander Rueger
Alexander Rueger*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, alex.rueger@ualberta.ca
Get access

Abstract

Kant's characterisation of judgements of taste, as expressing a disinterested pleasure and as being independent of concepts, defines the framework in which he attempts to justify or ‘deduce’ their claim to universal and necessary validity. In §38 of the Critique of Judgement, the ‘official’ deduction, the problem is to find a balance between the aim of grounding the judgements' validity on their relation to cognition and the danger of collapsing these aesthetic judgements into cognitive ones. Apparently, Kant's intention is to show that even though judgements of taste are not cognitive judgements, they are close enough to the conditions employed in all cognition to legitimize their claim to universal validity. Yet, in §59 of the Dialectic Kant seems to attempt another justification, this time by relating judgements of taste to morality. The problem now is to specify this relation so as to avoid reducing aesthetic to moral judgements. The justificatory projects in §38 and §59 are usually considered to be quite different. My aim in this paper is to clarify the relation between the two projects on the basis of an interpretation of what the pleasurable state of mind consists in, that is, the free harmonious play of the faculties in which everyone ought to share in the presence of beautiful objects. In the light of this interpretation I shall give a reconstruction of the argument of §38 which reveals its connection and contrast with §59.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Kant and Hegel , 2011 , pp. 232 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, H. (2001), Kant's Theory of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (2003), ‘Reply to the Comments of Longuenesse and Ginsborg’, Inquiry 46: 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (2006), ‘Response to Paul Guyer’ in Kukla, R. (ed.), Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant's Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. (1989), ‘Analytic/Dialectic’ in Schaper, E. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds), Reading Kant. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Caranti, L. (2005), ‘Logical Purposiveness and the Principle of Taste’, Kant-Studien 96: 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, A. (2007), ‘Kant on the Normativity of Taste: The Role of Aesthetic Ideas’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85: 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, D. (1974), Kant's Aesthetic Theory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Düsing, K. (1968), Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Elliot, R. K. (1968), ‘The Unity of Kant's “Critique of Aesthetic Judgement”’, British Journal of Aesthetics 8: 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, E. (2000), Kant's Final Synthesis. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fricke, C. (1990), Kants Theorie des reinen Geschmacksurteils. Berlin: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (1990), ‘Reflective Judgement and Taste’, Nous 24: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (1997), ‘Lawfulness without a Law’, Philosophical Topics 25: 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (1997), Kant and the Claims of Taste. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (1993), Kant and the Experience of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2003), ‘Kant on the Systematicity of Nature: Two Puzzles’, History of Philosophy Quarterly 20: 277–295.Google Scholar
Guyer, P. (2005), ‘The Harmony of the Faculties Revisited’ in The Values of Beauty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. (2006), ‘Remarks on Henry Allison's “Kant's Theory of Taste”’ in Kukla, R. (ed.), Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant's Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgement, trans. Guyer, P. and Matthews, E., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnaman, T. (2000): ‘Symbolism and Cognition in General in Kant's “Critique of Judgement”’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 82: 266–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulenkampff, J. (1994), Kants Logik des ästhetischen Urteils. Second edition. Frankfurt: Klostermann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillow, K. (2000), Sublime Understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogerson, K. (1986), Kant's Aesthetics. Lantham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Rueger, A. (2008a), ‘The Free Play of the Faculties and the Status of Natural Beauty in Kant's Theory of Taste’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90: 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueger, A. (2008b), ‘Beautiful Surfaces: Kant on Free and Adherent Beauty in Nature and Art’, British Journal of the History of Philosophy 16: 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueger, A. and Evren, S. (2005), ‘The Role of Symbolic Presentation in Kant's Theory of Taste’, British Journal of Aesthetics 45: 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, F. (2001), ‘The Harmony of the Faculties’, Kant-Studien 92: 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckert, R. (2007), Kant on Beauty and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar