Graduate studies at Western
British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (4):415-436 (2011)
|Abstract||The notion of the ‘free harmony of the faculties’ has baffled many of Kant's readers and also attracted much criticism. In this paper I attempt to shed light on this puzzling notion. By doing so, I aim to challenge some of the criticisms that this notion has attracted, and to point to its relevance to contemporary debates in aesthetics. While most of the literature on the free harmony is characterized by what I regard as an ‘extra-aesthetic approach’, I propose ‘an aesthetic approach’ to the harmony. Such an aesthetic interpretation explains why aesthetic judgement, but not cognitive judgement, is based on a free agreement of the faculties in distinctively aesthetic terms. By contrast, an extra-aesthetic approach to Kant's aesthetic theory does not explain what it is in beautiful objects as beautiful that calls for a free agreement of the faculties. I argue that this approach is limited, and suggest an alternative to it by articulating the necessary reciprocity and explanatory interdependence between the form and value of beautiful objects and the form of the mental activity that underlies judgements of taste. My proposal is not only aesthetic, but also normative in its attempt to carve up a space for a distinct form of aesthetic normativity, the one that Kant describes as ‘free lawfulness’ or ‘lawfulness without a law’. I opt for a specifically normative variant of aesthetic interpretation because I believe that Kant is committed to the view of aesthetic judgement as normatively autonomous and irreducible|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Andrew Chignell (2007). Kant on the Normativity of Taste: The Role of Aesthetic Ideas. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):415 – 433.
Fred L. Rush Jr (2001). The Harmony of the Faculties. Kant-Studien 92 (1):38-61.
James Phillips (2011). Placing Ugliness in Kant's Third Critique : A Reply to Paul Guyer. Kant-Studien 102 (3):385-395.
Jenny McMahon (2010). The Classical Trinity and Kant's Aesthetic Formalism. Critical Horizons 11 (3):419-441.
Keren Gorodeisky (2010). A New Look at Kant's View of Aesthetic Testimony. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (1):53-70.
Paul Guyer (2003). The Cognitive Element in Aesthetic Experience: Reply to Matravers. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (4):412-418.
Alexander Rueger (2008). The Free Play of the Faculties and the Status of Natural Beauty in Kant's Theory of Taste. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 90 (3):298-322.
Brit Strandhagen (2007). Disconnecting Reality. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 12:31-35.
Philip Mallaband (2002). Understanding Kant's Distinction Between Free and Dependent Beauty. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (206):66-81.
Bart Vandenabeele (2012). Aesthetic Disinterestedness in Kant and Schopenhauer. Estetika 49 (1):45-70.
Malcolm Budd (2008). Aesthetic Essays. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth F. Rogerson (2009). The Problem of Free Harmony in Kant's Aesthetics. State University of New York Press.
Robert Hopkins (2000). Beauty and Testimony. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 47:209-236.
Rodolphe Gasché (2003). The Idea of Form: Rethinking Kant's Aesthetics. Stanford University Press.
C. E. Emmer (2001). The Senses of the Sublime: Possibilities for a Non-Ocular Sublime in Kant's Critique of Judgment. In Volker Gerhardt, Rolf Horstmann & Ralph Schumacher (eds.), Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung: Akten des IX. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Vol. 3. Walter de Gruyter.
Added to index2011-10-08
Total downloads14 ( #90,649 of 739,165 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,337 of 739,165 )
How can I increase my downloads?