Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate professor, Bu Ali Sina University
2 PhD. in the philosophy of art, Bu Ali Sina University
Abstract
Kant needs to deduction in order to provide for universal and necessary validity of aesthetic judgment in the critique of judgment. In the deduction sections, He wants a reply to this question: how can a singular judgment be universally valid for everyone? In other words, how can the aesthetic judgment which basically is subjective, claim universal validity? Some of the Kant's commentators believe that Kant's deduction which expresses in the formal sections is unsuccessful and then they by the connecting of the beauty with morality want to provide an objective base for the aesthetic judgment. They aimed to explain the universal validity of the judgments. This essay first express deduction, then crisis the moral interpretation of Kant's deduction. It seems that believe in a moral point of view in the deduction's topic neglect the autonomy of aesthetic judgments and arises hetoronoum judgments.
Highlights
The Review of Moral Interpretation of Aesthetic Deduction in Kant’s thought
Ali Salmani1, Davood Mirzaei2
1 Associate professor, Bu Ali Sina University. E-mail: salmani@basu.ac.ir
2 PhD. in the philosophy of art, Bu Ali Sina University. E-mail: davidivad1981@gmail.com
Abstract
Kant needs to deduction in order to provide for universal and necessary validity of aesthetic judgment in the critique of judgment. In the deduction sections, He wants a reply to this question: how can a singular judgment be universally valid for everyone? In other words, how can the aesthetic judgment which basically is subjective, claim universal validity? Some of the Kant's commentators believe that Kant's deduction which expresses in the formal sections is unsuccessful and then they by the connecting of the beauty with morality want to provide an objective base for the aesthetic judgment. They aimed to explain the universal validity of the judgments. This essay first express deduction, then crisis the moral interpretation of Kant's deduction. It seems that believe in a moral point of view in the deduction's topic neglect the autonomy of aesthetic judgments and arises hetoronoum judgments.
Keywords: Kant, Deduction, Beauty, Morality, Aesthetic Ideas.
Introduction
The Deduction in the means of the rightness of some judgment's voucher would be obliging in the time that the judgment claims necessity. Kant in the triple critiques was paid to the deduction. In the first critique, i.e., critique of pure reason, deduction connects to concepts of pure understanding. In the second critique, i.e., critique of practical reason, deduction connects to principles of practical reason. In the third critique, i.e., critique of judgment, deduction connect to the legitimacy of pure aesthetic judgments. In this reason, Kant's third critique have deduction argument. The philosophical or transcendental deduction in the third critique needs to a justification of pure understanding concepts, principles of pure practical concepts and aesthetic judgments of taste. Deduction in the critique of judgment has special essence. The need to deduction in this work arises from the universal validity of the aesthetic judgment. This judgment at the same time is subjective and individual. The duty of deduction in this work concern with justifying of such as claim. This essay firstly tries to clarify the deduction in Kant's critique of judgment. Then by the expression of some critics in deduction, try to put the moral interpretation of deduction in the Kant's aesthetic.
Deduction in Kant's aesthetic
Although Kant has put the formal deduction in the sections 30 – 54T but some critics believe that Kant deduction includes sections 30- 38. He in theses sections try to show that how can we have a private judgment which claims universality. How can the aesthetic judgment have universal validity?
Kant's formal deduction in section 38 cannot satisfy some commentators. They believe that only by the resources to subjective standard and in the absence of any objective standard, we cannot speak of beautifulness of some works. Because in spite of the presupposing of all humans have a common idea about the world, and in spite of the presupposing of common sense, we cannot reply to this question: when stopping the cognitive powers in humans in the aesthetics reflection, how can we expect that others have to experience as we? These commentators for the same reasons claims that in the Kant's aesthetic should exist some special quality that arises the harmony or certain mental state. This quality causes universality of aesthetic judgments. Efforts to find out an objective standard arise different interpretations of deduction. These interpolators resource to Kant arguments about ideal beauty, intellectual interests and expression of aesthetic ideas and in general to the connection of beauty with morality. Theses interpreters believe that Kant in the sections of deduction cannot complete the duty of deduction. By this reason, he has forced resources to Dialectic sections and moral arguments. In general moral interpretation believes Kant try to determine the content of beautiful with the moral affairs (both in the natural beauties and artistic beauties) provide a kind of objective base for the aesthetic judgments.
Conclusion
The moral interpretations neglect formal sections (30-38) in which Kant exclusively argue about the deduction. The connection of morality with beauty is not consistent with the characteristics of taste and aesthetic judgment. Taste and aesthetic judgment in the Kant aesthetic always are pure.
The judgment in the Kant aesthetics is autonomous i.e., it determines the law for the reflect upon nature for itself. It seems that connecting of morality with beauty disturb autonomous state.
Finally, even we accept that beautiful objects be judged because of the symbolic project and expression of moral ideas, so this question remains unanswered that which of moral concepts exhibited by these objects? in fact, the moral interpreter tries to by the connection of beauty with morality provide a kind of objectivity, then, universality for the aesthetic judgments, but they neglect that beautiful objects can exhibit different moral concepts.
References
- Allison, Henry (2001) Kant's Theory of Taste: a Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Cambridge.
- Crawford, Donald, (1974) Kant’s Aesthetic Theory, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
- Crowther, Paul, (1989) The Kantian Sublime, from morality to Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Elliott, R. K., (1968) “The Unity of Kant’s ‘Critique of Aesthetic Judgment’,” in British Journal of Aesthetics Vol. 8, pp. 244-259.
- Guyer, Paul, (1993) Kant and the Experience of Freedom, Essays on Aesthetics and Morality, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kemal, Salim, (1986) Kant and Fine Art, Oxford: Clarendon.
- Kemal, Salim, (2002) Kant’s Aesthetic Theory: An Introduction, London: MacMillan.
- MacMillan, Claude, (1985) “Kant’s Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgments,” Kant-Studien, Vol. 76, pp. 43–54.
- Savile, Anthony, (2003) "Kant and the ideal of beauty", in Art and Morality, eds. Jose Luis and Sebastian Gardner, Routledge, pp.185-204.
Keywords
)
Send comment about this article