Talk:Critique of Judgment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've expanded the aesthetics section of this substantially, but the teleology section could sitll use some major work. --Snowspinner

Kant's Major Concern: Subjective is not Objective[edit]

According to Schopenhauer's Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, Kant's main interest was not with the beautiful, the sublime, or natural purpose. Kant had very limited experience with beautiful art. His experience of the sublime may have been restricted to staring up at the starry heavens. He was not a naturalist who studied organisms. As in his Critique of Pure Reason, he seemed to be concerned with showing that subjective judgments cannot be assumed to be objective. The condition of the observing subject is not the condition of the observed object. In other words, "Fraulein Meyer seems, to me, to be beautiful" does not mean "Fraulein Meyer, as such, has a quality of beauty." Also, "the world seems to me to have been created by a Being who had a premeditated purpose" does not mean that "the world and everything in it, as such, was really created with a purpose in mind."

However, Kant thought that it was, at times, beneficial to act as though subjective judgments were based on actual qualities in objects.Lestrade 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Why Judgment?[edit]

Why did Kant write a critique of judgment? Because Kant's main interest was how an observing subject can make a judgment about an experienced object. His whole philosophy was about the relationship between subject and object. His main attitude was that everything considered to be a quality of an object is really conditioned by the constitution of the subject. In his critique of judgment, some people think that it is strange that he should write about beauty and teleology and call it a critique of judgment. But he wasn't interested in the fine arts or the details of the mechanics of nature. He was interested in how a person can say "She is a beautiful woman" instead of "It seems to me that she is a beautiful woman." Likewise, "Nature has a purpose or intelligent design" instead of "It looks to me like Nature has a purpose or intelligent design." That is, he was solely interested in how a subject can make a judgment about an object. All three of his critiques dealt with the relation between a subject and the inferred truth, goodness, or beauty of an object. Lestrade 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


Where did Kant say that the sublime is an object of fear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article's "Aesthetics" section contains the following two sentences: "The judgement that something is sublime is a judgement that it is beyond the limits of comprehension - that it is an object of fear. However, Kant makes clear that the object must not actually be threatening - it merely must be recognized as deserving of fear." This is somewhat in accord with § 28 of the Critique of Judgment. In that section, Kant tries to explain that "sublimity is not contained in any natural thing, but only in our mind, insofar as we can become conscious of our superiority to nature within us, and thereby also to nature outside us…." If an observer is confronted with something that is overwhelmingly large in spatial dimensions or in the dimension of time, he/she naturally feels fear due to his/her own relative smallness in space or briefness in time. But, if the overwhelmed observer is, at the same time, safe and secure, then he/she also feels a pleasure in witnessing the immensity. He says that "the sight of them becomes all the more attractive the more fearful it is, provided we are in a safe place." According to Kant, we find that our own power or faculty of reason is superior to the immensity of external nature. We can "judge nature without fear and to think of our vocation as being sublimely above nature." Therefore, the sublime is a mixture of both fear and pleasure.Lestrade (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Full Text Needed[edit]

Would someone PLEASE find an online version of Part II of the Critique? (Why isn't it online already?) That would be an inestimable service to the entire World Wide Web community, that is, the World. JKeck (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally found the full text (at Liberty Fund) and I posted a link. JKeck (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


What is the source for the claim that Derrida extensively studied the 3rd Critique? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)