First of all, I must disclaim that I had an incredibly hard time deciphering Kant’s dense, cluttered writing style. Despite reading and re-reading pages from both the book and packet, I still do not have a solid idea about what Kant is really trying to say.
The question relating judgment of objects to beauty is interesting. Earlier, Kant discussed how beauty can be almost like a physical property of an object, something measurable and defined. Therefore, if we judge objects solely according to concepts, we are not truly judging an object’s beauty. These concepts, as I interpret it, are things in our heads such as feelings and reactive emotions to a particular object. I feel Kant is saying that if we apply our emotions to judging something, we are not truly judging its beauty. This of course applies only if we subscribe to the notion that beauty truly is an intrinsic quality to an object that cannot be changed.
Personally, I partially agree with the above statement. I feel that there are some things, such as nature, that have elements of “pre-installed” beauty. Going back to what I took away from Conniff’s article, I feel that nature has particular qualities of beauty that appeal to all people throughout the world, thus making beauty universally applicable to nature—something that is just a part of what it is.
At the same time, I also feel that beauty follows the personal whims of whoever is judging an object beautiful. As we have discussed previously, our personal take on any object (both in judging its beauty and any other qualities we may judge it on) is both a product of its natural qualities and our personal experiences that shape our judgments. I may judge something beautiful that another person judges oppositely. In this manner, I agree with Kant’s sentiments that judgments are universal and necessary. People expect others to agree with us on our particular opinions of an object. Each person has their own ideas regarding the qualities of an object, and it is this constant tugging of different ideas that gives us many unique perspectives on just about anything.
I must admit, also, Brendan, that I had a really hard time following Kant's actual text; I got most of my understanding from Freeland's comments and that handout. I like your reference of Conniff here; his discussion of our "innate" preferences also crossed my mind while I was reading. It makes sense with Kant's statement that one of the elements of critiquing the beauty of a piece of art is realizing that the beauty you see is both universal (as Hume said) and already present in the art, which, as Conniff says, we are programmed to appreciate according to our DNA.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of like putting all of the theories together help art make more sense!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, a difficult 18th century vocabulary. "I feel Kant is saying that if we apply our emotions to judging something, we are not truly judging its beauty." - this is key to understanding Kant. Thoughtful comments!
ReplyDelete