Kant's Critique of Baumgarten's Aesthetics

Idealistic Studies 45 (1) (2015)

Abstract

This article considers three objections Immanuel Kant raises against Alexander Baumgarten’s plan for a science of aesthetics at different points in his career. Although Kant’s objections appear to be contradictory, this article argues that the contradiction is the result of an anachronism in the composition of Kant’s Logic. When the contradiction is resolved, it becomes apparent that Kant’s main reason for rejecting Baumgarten’s aesthetics during the pre-critical period—the lack of a priori principles for a critique of taste—loses its force after Kant develops a kind of critique that yields a priori principles and then discovers a priori principles of aesthetic judgment. Instead of withdrawing his objections, Kant finds different reasons to deny that aesthetics can be a science, based on the distinction between determining and reflective judgments.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,805

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-10-28

Downloads
41 (#280,875)

6 months
2 (#258,199)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Baumgarten on Sensible Perfection.J. Colin McQuillan - 2014 - Philosophica -- Revista Do Departamento de Filosofia da Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa 44.
The Neglected Programme of Aesthetics.Steffen W. Gross - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (4):403-414.
Kant and Herder on Baumgarten's Aesthetica.Angelica Nuzzo - 2006 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (4):577-597.
Ingenio, Uso Hipotético de la Razón y Juicio Reflexionante en la Filosofía de Kant.Manuel Sánchez Rodríguez - 2012 - Anales Del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 29 (2):577-592.