Authors
José Luis Fernández
Fairfield University
Abstract
Necessity can be ascribed not only to propositions, but also to feelings. In the Critique of Judgment (KdU), Immanuel Kant argues that a feeling of beauty is the necessary satisfaction instantiated by the ‘free play’ of the cognitive faculties, which provides the grounds for a judgment of taste (KdU 5:196, 217-19). In contradistinction to the theoretical necessity of the Critique of Pure Reason and the moral necessity of the Critique of Practical Reason, the necessity assigned to a judgment of taste is exemplary necessity (KdU 5:237). Necessity can also be assigned by employing the de re/de dicto distinction, namely, by ascribing entailments of what must necessarily hold to either a thing (de re) or to a proposition (de dicto). Although Kant does not use the distinction in any of the three Critiques, this omission has not prevented Kant scholars from applying the distinction in their analyses of the first two Critiques. In this paper, I examine the role that modality plays in Kant’s third Critique and I attempt to bring the de re/de dicto distinction to bear on Kant’s famous aesthetic theory. Ultimately, I perform a retrospective classification of the modality of taste by arguing that because a judgment of taste is not a statement about an objective fact, a judgment of ‘x is beautiful’ can only be read as de dicto necessary.
Keywords Kant, Taste, Feeling, Necessity
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Kant and the Claims of Knowledge.Paul Guyer - 1987 - Cambridge University Press.
Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.Immanuel Kant - 2007 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Journal of Philosophy. New York: Blackwell. pp. 507-508.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Analogical 'Ought' of Taste.José Luis Fernández - 2018 - In Margit Ruffing Violetta L. Waibel (ed.), Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 2997-3004.
What is Claimed in a Kantian Judgment of Taste?Miles Rind - 2000 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 38 (1):63-85.
Kant on the Pleasures of Understanding.Melissa McBay Merritt - 2014 - In Alix Cohen (ed.), Kant on Emotion and Value. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 126-145.
Kant and the Pleasure of “Mere Reflection”.Melissa Zinkin - 2012 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 55 (5):433-453.
Kant's Theory of Judgment, and Judgments of Taste: On Henry Allison's "Kant's Theory of Taste".Béatrice Longuenesse - 2003 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):143 – 163.
Eine andere Art von Gefühl der Lust beim Kantischen Geschmacksurteil.Hye-jin Lee - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 16:283-291.
From Beautiful Art to Taste.Joâo Lemos - 2017 - Con-Textos Kantianos 5:216-235.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-08-28

Total views
24 ( #461,738 of 2,463,232 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #39,782 of 2,463,232 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes