The Subjective Basis of Kant's Judgment of Taste
Inquiry 54 (4):315-336 (2011)
| Abstract | Abstract Kant claims that the basis of a judgment of taste is a merely subjective representation and that the only merely subjective representations are feelings of pleasure or displeasure. Commentators disagree over how to interpret this claim. Some take it to mean that judgments about the beauty of an object depend only on the state of the judging subject. Others argue instead that, for Kant, the pleasure we take in a beautiful object is best understood as a response to its qualities, and that, accordingly, feelings of pleasure or displeasure are no different from other representations, such as colors or smells. While I agree that the judgment of taste is best understood as asserting a claim about an object's qualities, I argue that the distinction Kant makes between feelings of pleasure or displeasure and other representations should not be ignored. I show that one's liking or disliking for an object is merely subjective in the sense that its significance depends on what one has made of oneself through one's aesthetic education. The judgment of taste, then, is merely subjective because one must first become the kind of person whose feelings have the right significance at the right time before one can determine whether an object's qualities make it beautiful | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMelissa Zinkin (2012). Kant and the Pleasure of “Mere Reflection”. Inquiry 55 (5):433-453.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2003). Kant's Theory of Judgment, and Judgments of Taste: On Henry Allison's "Kant's Theory of Taste". [REVIEW] Inquiry 46 (2):143 – 163.
Andrew Chignell (2007). Kant on the Normativity of Taste: The Role of Aesthetic Ideas. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):415 – 433.
G. Anthony Bruno (2009). Aesthetic Value, Intersubjectivity and the Absolute Conception of the World. Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics 6 (3).
María Rosario Acosta Lópedelz (2007). Beauty as an Encounter Between Freedom and Nature: A Romantic Interpretation of Kant's Critique of Judgment. Epoché 12 (1):63-92.
María Del Rosario Acosta López (2007). Beauty as an Encounter Between Freedom and Nature. Epoché 12 (1):63-92.
Henry E. Allison (2001). Kant's Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment. Cambridge University Press.
Bart Vandenabeele (2008). The Subjective Universality of Aesthetic Judgements Revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (4):410-425.
J. J. Tinguely (2013). Kantian Meta-Aesthetics and the Neglected Alternative. British Journal of Aesthetics 53 (2):211-235.
Paul Guyer (1997). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge University Press.
Nick Zangwill, Aesthetic Judgment. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Luigi Caranti (2005). Logical Purposiveness and the Principle of Taste. Kant-Studien 96 (3):364-374.
Katalin Makkai (2010). Kant on Recognizing Beauty. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):385-413.
A. Degryse (2011). Sensus Communis as a Foundation for Men as Political Beings: Arendt's Reading of Kant's Critique of Judgment. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (3):345-358.
Miles Rind (2003). Kant's Beautiful Roses: A Response to Cohen's ‘Second Problem’. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):65-74.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-07-15Total downloads12 ( #93,300 of 549,006 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,706 of 549,006 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
