|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Constantinos Tsouris
Position paper on Kant’s Analytic of the Beautiful
April 7th, 2002
Kant argued in favor of the autonomy of the aesthetic sphere from rationality and interest; the beautiful, as the object of a delight, is that which does not stimulate any interest in the subject, nor is it subjected to reason. ... First let me contrast Kant’s view on the very nature of the beautiful. ... Kant however made this notion all the most obscure when he connected it with universality; I’ll come back to that later. ... Yet the arousing of such a possessive desire would automatically exclude it from the category of beautiful objects, if we were to follow on Kant’s principles. Now as far as Kant’s positioning on the disinterestedness of aversion is concerned, this I have to agree with. ... It seems to me that Kant saw this mainly from a theoretical point of view, which is why what he claimed is considerably inapplicable by real life standards.
I think that most of the problems that rise from Kant are deducible from his initial definition of the beautiful as that which involves no interest or desire; intermingling universality with subjectivity made things all the more problematic. ... Of course, I comply with Kant in that beauty is not the property of the thing, but instead, it is given to it by the subject. ... Kant, in contrast to that, argues that the aesthetic experience must be seen in isolation to morality and history. ... The disassociation of the beautiful with particularity is pursued for as Kant argued, within such a context, people can not judge subjectively. ...
Now let me talk a bit about the distinction Kant draws between beautiful in nature and beautiful in art.
Approximate Word count = 1430
Approximate Pages = 5.7
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|