Systematicity and Symbolisation in Kant's Deduction of Judgements of Taste
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’ ded...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 2011, Vol.32 (1-2), p.232-251 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0263-5232 2051-5375 2396-8176 |
DOI: | 10.1017/S0263523200000240 |