David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Aesthetic Education 45 (2):49-69 (2011)
A clear-cut concept of the aesthetic is elusive. Kant’s Critique of Judgment presents one of the more comprehensive aesthetic theories from which we can extract a set of features, some of which pertain to aesthetic experience and others to the logical structure of aesthetic judgment. When considered together, however, these features present a number of tensions and apparent contradictions. Kant’s own attempt to dissolve these apparent contradictions or dichotomies was not entirely satisfactory as it rested on a vague notion of indeterminacy. He addressed the emerging tensions with his distinction between pure and dependent beauty, which is a distinction I believe a satisfactory theory of aesthetic judgment would reveal as unfounded. In addition, Kant left a crucial connection unaccounted for. This was the connection between the two aspects that he envisaged characterized an aesthetic judgment. The two aspects to which I refer are the “purposiveness of form” provided by the Imagination and the associated mental content,which Kant called “aesthetic ideas.” More recent aesthetic theories treat only a subset of the features addressed in Kant’s aesthetic theory. Even so, the standard aesthetic theories, such as expressivism, cognitivism, and formalism, entrench the kind of thinking that grounds these dichotomies. In contrast, I will demonstrate that a naturalized aesthetic theory can accommodate all the features suggested by the Kantian analysis in such a way that they are shown to be complementary rather than contradictory.
|Keywords||Aesthetic judgment aesthetic experience pure and dependent beauty|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Hopkins (2001). Kant, Quasi-Realism, and the Autonomy of Aesthetic Judgement. European Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):166–189.
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
Bart Vandenabeele (2007). Schopenhauer on the Values of Aesthetic Experience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):565-582.
Aaron Meskin (2004). Aesthetic Testimony: What Can We Learn From Others About Beauty and Art? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):65–91.
Jennifer A. McMahon (2010). The Classical Trinity and Kant's Aesthetic Formalism. Critical Horizons 11 (3):419-441.
Alison Ross (2010). The Modern Concept of Aesthetic Experience: From Ascetic Pleasure to Social Criticism. Critical Horizons 11 (3):333-339.
Ian F. Verstegen (2006). A Critical Realist Perspective on Aesthetic Value. Journal of Critical Realism 5 (2):323-343.
Malcolm Budd (2008). Aesthetic Essays. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads143 ( #27,850 of 1,935,138 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #113,416 of 1,935,138 )
How can I increase my downloads?