Read Critique of Judgment by Immanuel Kant Werner S. Pluhar Online


In THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT (1790), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) seeks to establish the a priori principles underlying the faculty of judgment, just as he did in his previous critiques of pure and practical reason. The first part deals with the subject of our aesthetic sensibility; we respond to certain natural phenomena as beautiful, says Kant, when we recognize in nature aIn THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT (1790), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) seeks to establish the a priori principles underlying the faculty of judgment, just as he did in his previous critiques of pure and practical reason. The first part deals with the subject of our aesthetic sensibility; we respond to certain natural phenomena as beautiful, says Kant, when we recognize in nature a harmonious order that satisfies the mind's own need for order. The second half of the critique concentrates on the apparent teleology in nature's design of organisms. Kant argues that our minds are inclined to see purpose and order in nature and this is the main principle underlying all of our judgments. Although this might imply a super sensible Designer, Kant insists that we cannot prove a supernatural dimension or the existence of God. Such considerations are beyond reason and are solely the province of faith....

Title : Critique of Judgment
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780872200258
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 686 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Critique of Judgment Reviews

  • BlackOxford
    2018-12-29 04:32

    The Sublimity of MeasurementMy recent interest is in the aesthetics of measurement, that is, in the criteria we use to chose a scale, or metric, when we make measurements of any kind, scientific or as part of everyday life. This choice of metric is the most important factor in measurement since mistakes in choosing an inappropriate metric are far more significant than any subsequent errors in using a metric. Mistakes in the choice of metric are also far more difficult to detect because they involve judgmental not technical lapses. Judgments about these criteria of importance and value tend to become ‘self-sealing’ by eliminating rival criteria as a matter of course.Immanuel Kant wrote a great deal about aesthetics but almost all of what he wrote concerns the limited area of beauty in art. This is a subject treated with special depth in The Critique of Judgment. So, although there is unlikely to be much explicit about the broader considerations of aesthetics, I’m hopeful of some inspiration that can be useful in my own theory. As far as I am aware Kant unfortunately says nothing systematic about measurement. Nevertheless there are hints and suggestions about his views scattered in The Critique of Judgment. My intention is to investigate a few of these clues to his thinking, and to steal them if I can for my own purposes.As part of his analysis, Kant assesses what he calls ‘teleological judgment’, that is the choices we make about ends, purposes and goals, rather than about the means to achieve these. This is where I shall focus my investigation since it most closely touches on the pivotal question in any measurement: Why? This is a question of value that is typically neglected in the discussion of measurement simply because measurement can appear to be purely instrumental. That it never is places it squarely in the realm of teleological judgment.For Kant, judgment is a human ‘faculty’, a capability which has certain powers and limits. Judgment is “the capacity to subsume under rules, that is, to distinguish whether something falls under a given rule.”In my terminology this ‘rule’ is the practical name for an aesthetic. In choosing such a rule, we are taking a definite ‘stance’ regarding the world. The rule is both a filter and an ordering principle. The act of judgment presumes, I believe, that the rule is more or less articulate and therefore subject to conscious revision. In other words, we can learn about the rule.Judgment has two functions therefore: determining and reflecting. Determining involves finding the right ‘universal’, that is concept or word for the situation at hand. Thus this function covers the choice of rule or aesthetic, that is, the metric of measurement. Reflective judgment is particularly relevant to the related activities of aesthetic choice and purposeful behaviour. It is the source of what Kant calls ‘empirical concepts’, that is, for my purposes, the range of aesthetic rules or metrics that one has at one’s disposal. An aesthetic judgment, Kant says, is based on a ‘feeling’, that is a sensory perception of satisfying ‘rightness’. Unlike subsequent 19th century philosophers and 20th century neo-liberals, Kant does not consider such a feeling fixed or isolated from social effects, so I have no objection to using feeling as the basis for aesthetic judgments in measurement. Once again, since this feeling is the emotional equivalent to a rule, it can be, indeed must be, made more or less explicit in language. Kant’s ideas about beauty, although stimulating for my purposes, are not directly relevant to the issues of measurement. But his concept of the Sublime is. “The experience of the sublime consists in a feeling of the superiority of our own power of reason, as a supersensible faculty, over nature.” The specific category of the ‘mathematically sublime’ appears especially important for empirical measurement. The feeling of the mathematically sublime is not one of human arrogance but of a recognition that we can reason beyond that which we can imagine. For example, we can’t imagine what infinity is or looks like, but we can use the idea of infinity in our reasoning with little difficulty. The mathematically sublime, therefore, appears to me as a sort of power of transcendent imagination, what the 19th century American philosopher, C S Peirce would call ‘abduction’. Briefly, this power manifests itself as the ability to create, invent, discover novel hypotheses about the world. Such hypotheses can be neither inductively nor deductively derived. They appear more as intuitive but plausible guesses about what might fit best with our intentions.My suggestion is that the mathematically sublime is the source of metrics, as both a range of alternatives and as a particular choice from among these. Metrics are not found in nature; they are imposed upon it. As far as we know, only human beings have this power of imposition. Things like numbers and metrics can’t be considered as anything other than ‘real’, but their reality is the consequence of human reasoning not natural evolution. Sublimity strictly speaking “is not contained in anything in nature, but only in our mind” Thus the mathematically sublime, or abduction, or any other description of this ability is a “faculty of the mind which surpasses every standard of sense.” In other words, the mathematically sublime goes beyond ‘mere’ feeling. It may have its roots in feeling but according to Kant, it then transcends feeling completely. This, I believe, is the pivotal link between aesthetics and measurement in his philosophy. Measurement imposes our purpose on whatever is being measured. This is a crucial recognition. The properties measured are not part of the object, they are the product of our intention. This recognition also raises the possibility of a ‘morality of measurement’. If we inevitably impose our purposes on things measured, we have at least two moral responsibilities: to consider those purposes explicitly and to recognise that measurement is not a morally neutral or objective activity of inquiry. The aesthetic judgments involved in measurement are arguably the most significant and profound of any in science.Thank you, Immanuel, for your inspiring thought.

  • Erik Graff
    2019-01-14 21:32

    I've previously reviewed both The Critique of Pure Reason and The Critique of Practical Reason, describing some of the reasons why the reading of the three critiques led to what might be called a conversion experience--or perhaps an intellectual mystical or jnana experience.For one who has sedulously studied Kant, the third critique is a kind of capstone as it brings a lot of loose threads of his arguments together in a rather ecstatically inspiring manner. I certainly experienced a kind of intellectual ecstasy, repeatedly, during the course of this study--a process which involved most of a summer sitting from eight to fourteen hours a day at the Hungarian Pastry Shop at Cathedral and 110th St. and which included reading a number of his ancillary works as well as the magisterial commentary of the first critique by an early translator, Norman Kemp Smith.A rather cheap way to get at the point of the third critique would be for someone informed by the Christian tradition to read his Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. If you like the Jesus of the gospels--as opposed to the Jesus of Revelation--you will find that to be similarly inspiring, a relatively quick rush. Unfortunately, however, that apologetic does not have the compelling force of the detailed definition and argumentation of the three critiques. You'll have the rush, but it will pass.And what is the point of the Critical project? Well, of course there are many points which you'll find described pretty clearly in the book description appended under the list of contents to this edition, but the real point is what that much-edited Wikipedia writer refers to in his concluding remark about Fichte et alia. Kant was basically a mystic, even a metaphysician, but much more careful about it than his antimetaphysical successor Nietzsche. This seems a contradiction to the programme of the first critique. It is, but The Critique of Pure Reason simply lays the groundwork for the two following books. We are, so far as we operate as rational beings, Logos incarnate.

  • Yann
    2019-01-13 03:28

    Cette dernière critique du célèbre philosophe prussien du XVIIIème siècle aborde deux thèmes : d’une part la question du jugement esthétique, d’autre part celle de la téléologie. Sa première critique (Critique de la raison pure) avait pour objet la métaphysique : il justifiait d’en faire l’objet d’une étude malgré les coups sévères que lui avaient porté l’empirisme en établissant une curieuse distinction psychologique entre jugement a priori et a posteriori (c'est-à-dire influé ou non par la sensation), et en supposant que les premiers étaient quelque chose. Il ne prouvait rien, confirmait l’impossibilité de toute connaissance possible sur ces matières, mais sauvegardait par contre fermement la légitimité de rêvasser à sa guise sur ces questions obscures et disputées. Beaucoup de complexité et de jargon pour une idée simple, mais la bonne intention de mettre un terme à des criailleries inutiles.La seconde critique (Critique of Practical Reason) partait de ces considérations pour aborder la question morale, déjà abordée dans ses Fondements de la métaphysique des moeurs: là Kant craque, et nous explique que c’est mieux d’avoir certaines idées métaphysiques si on veut que la morale soit possible, et donc qu’on devrait les postuler non parce qu’on prétend savoir qu’elles sont vraies, mais parce que sinon ce serait affreux, et qu’elles sont nécessaires dans la pratique. C’est très joli, sauf que le lien qu’il fait entre métaphysique et morale, en l’occurrence la vieille question increvable du libre-arbitre, n’a aucune autre espèce de solidité que l’aplomb avec lequel il le pose, aplomb qui entraîne vers le fond son argument tombé à l’eau. A mon avis, il aurait pu s’en tenir au scepticisme, et la morale aurait été sauve de toute façon.Dans cet ouvrage-ci, il s’agit de regarder la question du jugement esthétique, le problème étant la diversité de ceux-ci entre les individus tout pendant qu’il connaît une règle universelle. C’est encore un bon sujet ou caser sa distinction consistant à découper l’âme entre ce qui est infecté par les sensations et ce qui ne l’est pas : évoquer la possibilité de jugement esthétiques a priori permet de postuler une règle du beau universelle, mais la postuler seulement, et non pas la connaître. La question est fort intéressante, mais les outils ne sont pas les meilleurs. Pour moi, c’est un peu trop de peines et de complications pour une idée qui aurait peut-être pu être exposée plus simplement, sans sacrifier à la rigueur.La dernière partie est un peu décevante, car elle reprend un thème déjà largement traité dans le première critique, ici l’idée métaphysique de téléologie, ou pour parler français, de savoir si une intelligence à pensé à une finalité pour le monde, où si ce dernier continue gentiment son petit train comme il peut. Comme de raison, Kant revient à une position quasi-sceptique, et nie à la théologie ses prétentions en matière de physique, tout en confirmant bien évidemment le droit de chacun de penser à sa guise sur ces sujets, surtout si ça peut s’avérer utile en pratique.L’appareil critique est très fourni. J’ai trouvé piquantes les références faites aux nombreux philosophes ayant vécu après Kant qui se sont semble-t-il amusé à l’interpréter dans des sens tout à fait divers et contradictoires. Je n’aime pas beaucoup toute cette tradition, ce jargon inutile pour envelopper des idées somme toute pas si complexes, et qui ne sont pas si neuves : on en retrouve l’essentiel chez Platon. L’idée phare et originale de Kant, la séparation de la sensation et de l’âme, ne me convainc pas car peu évidente à envisager. Ses critiques me laissent donc déçu. Mais en dehors de ce reproche, il faut avouer que Kant est plutôt sympathique, apaisant, et ouvert: il mérite bien que l’on soit favorablement disposé à son égard. Il n’y a plus qu’à lire le reste de ses écrits.

  • Steven Felicelli
    2019-01-08 03:22

    the book I most respect and least enjoyed reading

  • Aeisele
    2019-01-07 03:29

    This is probably my favorite of Kant's three critiques (Pure and Practical Reason being the other two). However, when it comes to reading Kant, saying "favorite" is not quite right: he was such a bad writer, and such a brilliant thinker, its hard to deal with some times.In any case, this is very interesting because he looks at judgment as a reflective action, both concerning objects of art that are beautiful or sublime, and teleological reflection in nature.

  • Scott Langston
    2019-01-05 23:26

    Whist I have to admit I had to read this for study, I'm phenomenally glad that I did. It's horribly impenetrable, though. Very, very hard work to get through, let alone digest. Do I understand Kant? No, not really. Can I talk about him and his ideas comfortably? Well, yes, kind of. Would I recommend this? Not as light reading, or for fun. If you want to understand Kant, there are far more accessible works by better writers explaining him!

  • Zeynep
    2019-01-01 02:30

    kant'ın çoğu şeye bakışı elitist, hiyerarşik ve ideolojik fakat şu art for art's sake olayını pek güzel işliyor. sanatı bir şey öğretip öğretmediğine ya da yarattığı duygusal tatmine göre değil kendi sınırları içinde değerlendirmek çok ferahlatıcı bir şey, özellikle günlük hayatımızda bu kadar çok kitap, dizi, film, müzik tüketiyor ve onlara çoğunlukla yukarıdaki sebeplerden ötürü bağlanma hatasına düşüyorken.

  • Mar_yamane
    2018-12-31 21:19

    اولاش اذیت کرد. مثل دو تا نقد دیگه‌ی کانت. ولی باهاش که راه بیای، اصطلاحاش که دستت بیاد، عاشق اینم میشی. مثل اون دو تا نقد دیگه‌ی کانت.البته اینجا کانت خیلی لطیف‌تر از کانتیه که توی نقد عقل محض می‌بینیم. ناسلامتی داره از زیبایی‌شناسی حرف می‌زنی.از بهترین‌ کتاب‌درسی‌هایی بود که خوندم و فقط خدا می‌دونه اگه کانت اینو ننوشته بود تاریخ زیبایی‌شناسی به کجا می‌رفت.

  • Alex Lee
    2018-12-28 04:36

    This is a brilliant work, although it is somewhat mis-titled. Kant spends more time with teleology than with judgement, although the two are related. Here he clears the ground for teleological thinking as a whole. In a direct way, Kant is speaking of ideology through teleology as a point of caption for a logical system. He clearly separates this from the suprasensible point of caption and yet with the sublime Kant locates the Other as being the source of this teleological purpose. He closes the immanent phenomenological 'world' through the pragmatic teleological point to denote purpose from a certain view. And then he reproduces this structure with the suprasensible through the 'single design' of the Other.It is of course, a Lacanian (Zizek) notice that the Other is always defined as a reflective projection of the subject, so that the subject can be absorbed into a greater magnitude of purposefulness.One wonders what Kant would have been able to do had he been able to think outside the parameters of God. God is necessary to his time, and he had to include God somehow. Kant's insistence that the deployment of individual morality is a sign of a larger design (God) is interesting. We can find concordance with this concept through Hegel, Heidigger and others who would speak of an absolute meaningfulness (knowledge and purpose) founded on the position of an Other.While I agree heartily with Kant's denotation of the limitations of reason without desire, without pragmatic organization, it seems that he can't help but invert that structure for its own use in order to violate the terms by which he notes as being transcendental illusions. I would speculate that this is a necessary affect of trying to find meaning, in that he has to provide a singular domain for us all to collectively interact otherwise he would risk losing the very thing he seeks to capture, that of a role of reason and thought as the highest forms of concordance and social stability.Nietzsche would suggest that this is part of the problem of philosophers, that they seek to be teachers and thus are left with a latent content that enables stability of identity, forcing incoherencies to occur in what is otherwise unthinkably incoherent/inconsistent. I agree. Kant's attempt is valiant here but ultimately centered around human subjectivity, undeniably so, because it must be so presented for him to advance as he did. With this last critique, Kant presents in many ways, the seed for all modern inconsistency and reason with Godel, Turing and Russell. He presents the archetype of ideological state appratuses that Althusser and Foucault would present as logically singular points of consideration founded on nothing but its own purposefulness and in this manner, we still live in Kants shadow as he outlined the very structures and their limitations so that others later on could verify the same problems in countless different ways.We shall not leave Kant's shadow if we do not avoid the distinctions of method first presented by Descartes as being the nature of rational consistency -- Kant does extend this rationality by demonstrating how sublime marks can organize what would seem like an unorganizable system of consistency. For this reason, Kant's Critiques are very well worth the read.

  • Michael
    2019-01-21 04:12

    I haven't read the entire book (only selections for a class), but I had a lot of trouble with the translation, so I read it in parallel with the Guyer-Matthews translation from CUP. The Cambridge edition was significantly easier for me to understand, and I noticed that it was much truer to Kant's punctuation after I noticed some discrepancies and appealed to the German to break the tie. I don't know how important that is, or how close the translation is to the original in other respects (the only German that I can understand is the punctuation), but I found the other one to be much less work to get to the same conclusions. On the other hand, my instructor is a real, live, Kant scholar, and she assigned the Pluhar translation, so you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

  • Leonard Houx
    2019-01-09 00:39

    Isn't this, like, one of the most important books on philosophical aesthetics or something? No one told me that Kant actually tries to tell jokes in it (most of it is not jokes, though, and even the jokes aren't really that funny). I feel like for me to rate this book would be ridiculous, so I am not doing that.

  • Lorraine
    2019-01-20 04:21

    I don't have the time to read ALL of this. Got through half (study related). Fucking awesome, even though the process initially was like hitting your head repeatedly with a brick. The bloke has neither poetry nor humour. He does, however, have very rich ideas, and it's worth reading because of that

  • حسن صنوبری
    2019-01-10 02:40

    تشکر می‌کنم از کانت عزیز و دکتر رشیدیان بزرگواردر مجموع خوب بود، هم تالیف هم ترجمهفعلا به تشکر بسنده می‌کنم

  • Boi Kart
    2019-01-06 23:30

    Immanuel Kant Done here a good job. This is a great book for me and also for law student or every people.This is a great book to know about this matter. I really enjoy it, so I rate it 4 of 5. I think the discussion was interesting inside the book. Really easy to read, and i think this is a great book for book lovers.For more please visit

  • Amani Bryant
    2019-01-11 02:14

    Kant is hella difficult to PART of this for a class. a class taught by the same guy who edited and was lead translator for this edition of the book. basically, the class was only *SLIGHTLY* more intelligible than the book.

  • Shyam
    2019-01-12 22:19

    I only read Part One — Critique of Aesthetic Judgement________Placeholder

  • Xander
    2019-01-23 21:37

    In Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (1781), Immanuel Kant set out to reconcile rationalism and empiricism in a grand system which we call Transcendental Idealism: there exist two worlds - the phenomenal and the noumenal - and we can only have true knowledge of the noumenal world; the phenomenal world is just an imperfect representation, as constituted by our mental categories, of the world as it is in itself. We should employ Pure Reason to gather synthetic knowledge a priori about the noumenal world.In the Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft (1788), Kant applied this method of Pure Reason to gather synthetic knowledge a priori about the Moral Law. This led him to the discovery of the Categorical Imperative, which it is our duty to follow - even if it doesn't lead to happiness in the phenomenal world, we will be rewarded by God in the noumenal world. In finding all this, Kant was able to positively prove the existence of our immortal soul, our freedom and God as noumena. So Kant has dealt with epistemology and ethics and offered us a new world model. In the one world - the phenomenal - we are fully determined by natural causes, in the other world - the noumenal - we are fully free to will that which leads to the highest good (by doing our duty with regards to the categorical imperative). So it seems that we, as thinking intelligences, are both a phenomenon and noumenon and that in us the noumenal world has a causal mechanism by which to enact effects in the phenomenal world. We seem to be portals to both world.In the third Kritik, the Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790), Kant tries to create a bridge between both worlds. This last part of the trilogy consists of two parts, dealing respectively with Aesthetical Judgements and the Purposiviness of Nature.In the first part, Kant argues that Aesthetical Judgments - which deal with our sensual perception of the phenomenal world, according to our notions of time and space and the 12 categories - are reflective. With reflective, he means that we observe particular instances and try to generalize from these to universal statements. (A person with the right background knowledge sees in this the scientific method of induction by which we abstract mathematical equations as explanations from a collection of particular instances; this is the problem that led David Hume to radical scepticism and Immanuel Kant to his Transcendental Idealism). This is the only knowledge we can have about our world, gained a posteriori, and therefore an imperfect representation of the world as it is in itself.For Kant, there are only four types of reflective (aesthetical) judgments: (1) the agreeable, (2) the good, (3) the beautiful, and (4) the sublime. He is able to trace these four types of reflective judgments to his original table of judgments (as published in the first Kritik) of quantity, quality, relation and modality. In essence, Kant tries to explain how we judge on agreeableness, goodness, beauty and sublime - these are all phenomena and in that sense aesthetical and subjective.Now, what does Kant tell us about these four types of judgments? (1) Judgments on the agreeable are subjective and sensual. I like the smell of this flower, I like the tast of this wine, I like the view of this landscape. These are 'just' personal remarks. (2) Judgments on the good are objective and ethical. I fulfil my duty towards the Moral Law or not (as outlined in the second Kritik), and I observe that others do this too or not. (3) Judgments on the beautiful are related to the purposiveness of objects. Kant claims that we look for beauty in objects that seem to have a certain functionality or purpose, but are in reality fuctionless or purposeless. In others words: the form of the object pleases our mind and triggers our faculties of imagination and cognition. (4) The last type of judgments deal with the sublime. According to Kant, these judgments have their origin in objects that (seem) to lay beyond our mental capacity. We cannot comprehend these objects and this triggers some sort of fear in us, which leaves us in awe of the object.So much for the types of aesthetical judgments that we make about the phenomenal world around us. In the second part of this book, Kant proceeds to another - though at some points slightly relating - subject: teleology.According to Kant, we perceive a purposiveness in nature. We look at bees, flowers and horses and see functionality. It looks as if these objects are designed for a specific purpose. This is called teleology (from the greek word 'telos' meaning goal): when looking at nature, we abstract the appearant design of these objects and form teleological judgments.Kant explains that we see nature as having an objective purposiveness (compared to the subjective purposiveness in objects that we perceive as beauty), but this objective purposiveness is and remains our reflective aesthetical judgment. This, in other words, means that we judge as if (!) nature is teleoligcally constituted - our aesthetic judgments constitute a purposive nature around us, but this is and remains our ouw subjective judgment. We cannot know if nature has an objective purpose as a thing in itself, since this is not attainable for us, as Kant explained in the first Kritik.Kant even claims that man is justified to see nature as a grand teleological system, in the sense that nothing exists without a purpose and everything has to be expected to be the most suitable design for that particular purpose. But even though this seems to sound a lot like William Paley (who would later use the appearant teleology of nature as a proof for the existence of God, as a master watchmaker), Kant has to add the caveat that this is not real objective teleology. He has to do this, because in the first Kritik he explained that ALL of our aesthetical judgments are imperfect representations of the world as it is in itself. Therefore, it is logically impossible for us to know if nature truly is teleological. So this is a sort of bridge between the first and the third Kritik.A second sort of bridge, this time between the second and third Kritik, involves Kant's claim that there is - besides natural purposiviness - also ethical purposiveness. In the second Kritik, Kant told us to see man as an object in itself (as a noumena) and that we, as man, have freedom (also a noumena). But this freedom deals with us acting accordingly in the phenomenal world, in nature. So we apply causality and teleology in the natural world by using our freedom.To summarize all of the above, Kant explains in the third Kritik, that we continually aesthetically judge about the world around us. We use our imperfect apparatus of categories, space and time, to constitute the phenomenal world around us. We judge as if nature is teleological, has a purpose, but this is and remains a subjective judgment (i.e. we will never know if nature has a purpose). We also judge ourselves to be teleological, in the sense that - in morality - we apply our own will to nature and to our fellow human beings. Kant seems to say that man is the object, the purpose of nature. While I could appreciate the first two Kritiks, this third one confuses me. Not only that, I get the impression that Kant himself was highly confused about it all. I can see all the pieces of the puzzle fit together, with the closing of this last book - I agree in this. I can even see the necessity Kant had to have felt in writing his third Kritik, since he needs our aesthetical judgments as a bridge between our Understanding (imperfect knowledge of the phenomenal world, constituted according to the categories) and our Reason (perfect knowledge of the categories and the moral law). Kant needs to explain how it is possible that we - as noumenon AND phenomenon - are fully free in a deterministic world. The purposiviness of nature, including all the causality (and with this the seemingly inescapable determinism), is only appearant. We are ourselves purposiveness - we are objects in themselves - we are ourselves able to apply purposiveness to nature. Yet, I'm glad that my crash course of Kant is finished. I really enjoyed his original ideas in the first Kritik, I appreciated his humanity in the second Kritik, but I am flatly at a loss for words with this third Kritik. It all seems to fall into place, but I cannot help but notice the artificality and fragility of it all. Kant seems to overstretch himself a lot, and just when he is about to snap, he retreats safely into his two worlds-solution. We seem to see purpose in nature, but that would need an explanation (such as a designer, or at least a process of causality), so let's just fall back on the 'we constitute this purposiveness ourselves, with our incomplete apparatus for cognition." How convenient! Throughout his three Kritiks, Kant seems to build up the tension every time: letting the reader think he will make a daring and impressive jump, and at the supreme moment he seems to shy away again and offer us some lame excuse. I do acknowledge the genius of Kant, I do appreciate his originality and creativity, but at the same time I lament his conservational approach to it all. Positing two worlds is original, but he then sets out to use these two-world-hypothesis as an easy way out when he encounters problems. Proving God exists because we need him for our morals; following a flawed imperative is the definition of freed; this is all undeserving for a birhgt mind like Immanuel Kant. It is in this last Kritik that it really started to bother me, so I will not rate this book very highly - even though it was interesting to read.

  • Matt
    2019-01-19 04:17

    Not even beauty is safe from Kant’s demand for universal truth. Eye of the beholder be damned. In a consistent continuation of his first two critiques, Kant seeks an objective standard in artistic taste. He carefully draws distinctions between aesthetic judgments and focuses the first half of the Critique of Judgement on distinguishing the “beautiful and the sublime.” He defines them as:The beautiful in nature is a question of the form of the object, and this consists in limitation, whereas the sublime is to be found in an object devoid of form, so far as it immediately involves, or else by its presence provokes, a representation of limitlessness, yet with a super-added thought of its totality. Pg. 75, §23. Beauty is an “indeterminate concept of the understanding”; the sublime an “indeterminate concept of reason.” Beauty may charm, accompany a playful imagination and connote a purpose; the sublime touches on our indefinable core and through it we sense transcendence.Having set the standards for his aesthetic, Kant seems to despair that judgment of one’s tastes is not clearly definable against an objective standard. However, since he assumes there must be an objective standard, he seeks “in the supersensible the point of union of all our faculties a priori; for we are left with no other course to bring reason into harmony with itself.” Pg. 169, §57.At which point, Kant kills art. Or, at least tries to kill my joy in it,What follows is desire to purge subjective delight from appreciation of beauty and the sublime. For Kant, art can only be purely judged through an intellectual screen which filters corrupting pleasures and purpose. He then outlines his effort to deduce good taste in a manner not influenced by delight or purpose.Strangely, this morphs into the second half of the book which focuses on teleological judgment. Ultimately, his goal is to solve the problems of “God, freedom, and the immortality of the soul” Pg. 301, §91. He moves away from aesthetic judgment and focuses on natural form and purpose. Here, he speaks of the dangers in assuming purpose to form simply because a correlation can exist (though such correlations could mean the difference between beauty and the sublime in the first half of the book). In broad strokes, he dismisses any inherent purpose to the things in the world around us. Except for one. Humanity. He concludes that God can be sensed only by acting morally and only man can reflect on morality. The natural world yields nothing to Kant:Hence, the source of the failure of the attempt to attain to a proof of God and immortality by the merely theoretical route lies in the fact that no knowledge of the supersensible is possible if the path of natural concepts is followed. The reason why the proof succeeds, on the other hand, when the path of morals, that is, of the concept of freedom, is followed, is because from the supersensible, which in morals is fundamental (I.e. as freedom), there arises a definite law of causality. By means of this law the supersensible here not only provides material for the knowledge of the other supersensible, that is of the moral final end and the conditions of its practicability, but it also reveals its own reality, as a matter of fact, in actions. Pg. 302-303, §91. In the end, like all of Kant’s works, he is incredibly sincere in his efforts. And, there is no denying the respect Kant deserves for attempting to address an issue (aesthetics) left largely untouched since Aristotle. However, I have a hard time believing anyone who actually produces art is moved by Kant’s sterile intellectual view of aesthetics. Notably, though it may be an unfair comparison- and an apples/oranges kind of thing- but I found the abstract painter Kandinsky’s short little book Concerning the Spiritual in Art to be a much more moving discussion of aesthetics and the transcendent qualities of artistic expression.

  • Jon
    2019-01-09 21:37

    Well I must say it was good if you are into philosophy. In Critique of Judgement Kant explores in depth art and taste. The book is broken into two main parts - a critique of aesthetic judgement and a critique of teleological judgement. If you are into a heady undertaking of exhaustive thought on the subject then you won't be disappointed. Like Critique of Pure Reason Kant comes prepared to give aesthetics the same kind of workout he is famous for. Not surprising was they way he put the objective aspects of art and beauty through their paces in a similar comprehensive style he has used in Pure Reason but the subjective aspects were where he really surprised me. Art is by nature an elusive and subjective phenomenon in human experience and Kant finally flirts with the relevance of spirituality after prefacing his remarks to this point that one must suspend reason in considering them. Ironically I felt that this really made this a truly profound book. Kant wrote more extensively on aesthetics than most other philosophers and if you are interested in aesthetics then this is essential reading. Thankfully this book has very few extended footnotes. The footnotes in Critique of Pure Reason were thankfully absent and made this a more streamlined read of a very dense subject matter.

  • حازم جوهر
    2019-01-08 21:38

    هذا الكتاب الثاني الذي الذي أقرأه لهذا الفيلسوف الكبير ، كنت كلما أردت أن أقرأ له أتهيب ذلك ؛ لعلمي بعمقه و فلسفته و صعوبة أسلوبه التي تحتاج شخصا قد تعمق كثيراً في الفلسفة ، و لكني مع ذلك خضت هذا البحر و أنا لا أتقن السباحة جيدا ، قرائتي لهذا الكتاب و الكتاب الذي قبله قد استغرقت مني وقتا طويلا لأنني عهدت على نفسي أن لا أنهي قرائته حتى أفهمه كله ، و هذا تطلب مني الكثير من البحث و القراءة ، و هذا ما دفعني لكي أقرأ أكثر من كتاب مع هذا الكتاب ، حتى استطعت أن أفهمه أو قاربت ذلك إن صحت العبارة ، كتاب جميل لمن تعمق فيه و سبر غوره ، يحكي فيه عن علم الجمال و أسسه أراد أن يبرهن أنه لا توجد قاعدة بعينها مطلقة، يستطيع الإنسان بواسطتها أن يطلق حكمًا كليًا موضوعيًا حول جمال كائن من الكائنات ، وهذا يعني جوهريًا أن إمكان الحكم على ما هو جميل لا ينتمي الى الكلّي الشمولي ، وإنما الى ما هو ذاتي في الإنسان ، ولذلك تختلف الأحكام بنوع ما باختلاف الأشخاص الذين يطلقونها، لكن كانط يقف عند فكرة على درجة عالية من الدقة وهي انه على رغم أن الأحكام الجمالية لا يمكن أن تكون كلية بإطلاق، لأنها ذاتية تابعة لتنوّع الناس ، في المجمل كتاب جميل و لا يمكن لأي دارس أو باحث في الأمور الفلسفية أن لا يقرأ هذا الكتاب ، و لكن لا يستطيع أن يفهمه إلا من يمتلك خلفيه في الفلسفة و مدارسها و مصطلحاتها .

  • Joe
    2019-01-03 01:19

    Comment:Kant’s (3rd) Critique of Judgment has always seemed a duality to me. On the one hand you have the section on aesthetics while on the other hand you have the section on teleology. How do they hang together? Is the section on teleology really the ‘4th’ critique? …But what if this last, the search for intelligibility, meaning, purpose, was to be taken seriously? Wouldn’t it threaten to swallow all the other Critiques? The search for intelligibility and purpose becomes, inevitably becomes, the Creation of intelligibility and purpose. If you read the 3rd Critique first you might conclude that the other critiques (Pure Reason, Practical Reason) follow from it! …I believe Nietzsche read the 3rd Critique first! It is this last, actually the ‘4th’ Critique (teleology), that interests me, and not only (certainly!) for its importance in 19th Century biology. Our ability to form judgments, purposeful (Teleological) Judgments, is how Kant hoped to seal his system.

  • Pavel
    2018-12-27 03:27

    My encounter with the last Kant's Critique was rather casual. I started it as supplementary reading to Truth and Method, but it soon turned out to be a real gem. It is typical Kant - precise, pedantic, with insurmountable half page long sentences, but also with unbeatable ability to grasp roots of philosophical problems. In this work, I must give him one more credit - ability to incorporate something so intractable as beauty, taste and teleology in nature to his system. And Kant outdoes himself, for he takes it, with reserves, as a step towards noumenon that enables us to break the crust of phenomenal nature and experience totality. One cannot but deeply appreciate the genuineness with which he faces these problems, and vindicate Heidegger's quote that with Kant we can be sure he never cheats.

  • Maryanne
    2019-01-10 03:28

    Dense and difficult. This was my second reading a year. The second time was much easier but you can really get lost. Since Kant is considered one of the formost modern thinkers his writing is an essential component in the development of any sort of continuance of a coherent extension of the philosophical project. He revolutionized the notion of taste and aesthetics as a methodology, an organized system of judgement and a hierarchical canon of perception. His distance from the art object sets him apart from Hegel who placed poetry at the apex of his system. Hegel's focus was on process; Kant on intellectual discernment - disinterested interest and a priori reason.

  • Michael
    2018-12-25 05:21

    I would have thought this had been put on my list much earlier. Oh Well. this ithe text that would have driven my dissertation, had I written it. Kant's theory of aesthetic judgment and teleology is an incredibly useful examination of the faculty of judgment in general and the theory of aesthetic response. Kant is highly influential and anticipates a lot of what we think about in contemporary art theory, particularly as it pertains to assessing art and beauty without specific rules, or more appropriately with the invention of rules/laws. A wonderous, beautiful text.

  • Nick
    2018-12-24 23:17

    Kant is the Nostradamus of philosophy. Many claim that Kant's works are filled with insights. Actually, Kant's works are nothing more than the products of a deranged mind. I have heard bums spew incomprehensible nonsense similar to the abstruse and ambiguous writings of Kant. Although "there is always some reason in madness," there is very little reason to be found in Kant's madness.The professional and arm-chair "philosophers" who extol the brilliance of Kant are fools.

  • Boris
    2019-01-23 01:36

    After reading it three times, and making a primer of it, just because of pleasure, I still think there is no other major work in western tradition dealing with the very essence of art and its nature, which is FREEDOM, even in spite of moral considerations. Kant is always complex, but it is worth making the effort: the reward is priceless.

  • Anne
    2019-01-21 03:15

    Read only some excerpts of the book for my class, and even that is laborious enough. I'm probably just not fine and critical enough to appreciate Kantian aesthetics. Will definitely re-read; there are some parts that I still don't fully understand.

  • Iben
    2019-01-01 00:18

    How do you rate Kant? How do you rate something you were just barely able to understand? Should I give it 5 stars because it's a classic philosophical text? Should I give it 3 stars because I honestly found it annoyingly repetitious at times?4 seems like a happy medium.

  • Elena
    2019-01-12 23:27

    Forse le idee che hanno piu' senso in assoluto quando si cerca di definire un concetto tanto astratto quanto quello della "bellezza". Certo che si fa una fatica per capirci qualcosa, e per ritenerlo in testa, senza doverci ritornare di tanto in tanto per rinfrescarsi la memoria.

  • Irina Mladenovic
    2019-01-24 04:26

    This contains some potentially radical ideas regarding the nature of subjectivity and beauty.I enjoy reeding.