The role of symbolic presentation in Kant's theory of taste

British Journal of Aesthetics

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 229-247

  Rueger, Alexander ^a   Evren, Şahan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149347928     PISSN: 00070904     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aesthj/ayi035     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. J, Kuhlenkampf, Kants Logik des äisthetischen Urteils (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1978), pp. 154 and 152
2. See K. F. Rogerson, Kant's Aesthetics (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 156-165
3. C. Fricke, Kants Theorie des reinen Geschmacksurteils (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 132ff.
4. H. E. Allison, Kant's Theory of Taste (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001), ch. 12 and p. 386, n. 44
5. The recent book by H. Bielefeldt, Symbolic Representation in Kant's Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2003) does not deal with the theory of taste in any detail
6. For a modification of this reading, invoking aesthetic ideas, see Allison, Kant's Theory of Taste, pp. 256ff Allison's suggestion is fully compatible with what we say in section IV, below
7. For example, P. Guyer, Kant and the Claims of Taste (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1979), pp. 61-62
8. K. Diising, Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff (Bonn: Bouvier, 1968), pp. 80-85
9. H. Ginsborg, 'Reflective Judgment and Taste', Nous, vol. 24 (1990), pp. 63-78, on p. 74 and 76
10. Guyer, Kant and the Claims of Taste, pp. 61ff
11. see also K. Marc-Wogau, Vier Studien zu Kauts Kritik der Urteilskraft (Uppsala: Lundequistka Bokhandeln, 1938), pp. 36-40
12. and Kuhlenkampf, Kants Logik, pp. 32-56
13. Guyer-Matthews translation corrected
14. The association of the power of judgement with the faculty of the feeling of pleasure and displeasure is not as strange or arbitrary is it has often seemed to commentators (e.g. Kuhlenkampff, Kants Logik, p. 177, n. 16)
15. Cf. R. Zuckert, 'A New Look at Kant's Theory of Pleasure', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 60 (2002), pp. 239-252, for an excellent analysis of, and appropriate emphasis on, Kant's claim that PT is constitutive for the faculty of the feeling of pleasure and displeasure
16. See P. Guyer, 'Reason and Reflective Judgment', Nous, vol. 24 (1990), pp. 17-43
17. and Guyer, 'Kant's Principles of Reflective Judgment', in P. Guyer (ed.), Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), pp. 1-63
18. Ginsborg, 'Reflective Judgment', p. 65
19. Die Teleologie, pp. 83-84
20. These are the passages Ginsborg emphasizes in her interpretation
21. See also M. Podro, The Manifold in Perception (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 29-31
22. Rogerson, Kant's Aesthetics, p. 162
23. and Fricke, Kants Theorie, p. 134
24. Cf. P. Guyer, Kant and the Experience of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1993), pp. 99-100, who distinguishes between beauty as the symbol of morality and the sublime as a representation of the morally good
25. 'The self-sufficient beauty of nature reveals to us a technique of nature, which makes it possible to represent it as a system in accordance with laws the principle of which we do not find anywhere in our entire faculty of understanding, namely of a purposiveness with respect to the use of the power of judgment in regard to appearances, so that this must be judged as belonging not merely to nature in its purposeless mechanism but rather also to the analogy with art' (5:246; cf. also 20:244). For an interpretation of this passage to which we are indebted, see E. Förster, Kant's Final Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P., 2000), pp. 8ff