Immanuel Kant And Edward Bullough's Analysis Of The Beautiful

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, main goal was to discover the answer to how human beings could be genuinely good and kind, apart from the expectations of traditional religions. Immanuel Kant was born in the year 1724 to parents who were extremely modest. His father was a saddle maker who never made an excess amount of money. He was very thankful for his family and all things God had him blessed with. Kant got a late start in his studies, unlike David Hume. It was not until he was in his fifties that he became a professor that acquired a full salary and received a considerable amount of respect. Kant’s family held him to high standards and made it appoint to practice their religious beliefs. As Kant grew in age and knowledge he did not have any orthodox religious beliefs, but still saw the role that religion had played in his parent’s ability to deal with their hardships and blessing and how useful religion could be in creating a society where everyone was united.

It is very possible that Immanuel Kant’s 1784 essay “What is Enlightenment?” was influenced by Spinoza. Many of the arguments Kant makes could be traced back to arguments that Spinoza made in his Theological-Political Treatise. Kant discusses organized religion, freedom of thought and obedience, all of which are topics into which Spinzoa delves deeply in his work. The viewpoints held by Spinoza on these issues are eerily similar to those of Kant, making Spinoza’s influence quite possible, even likely.

Enlightenment, a stage in life where one should strive for. According to the text “What is Enlightenment” written by Immanuel Kant, enlightenment is “Sapere aude!” (Kant 105), which translates to “dare to know.” One reached enlightenment once they have achieved maturity and freedom. Throughout Immanuel Kant’s work “What is Enlightenment,” (Kant 105) he suggested that mankind developed a dependency on others for answers. Immanuel Kant believed that humankind is lazy and full of cowardice. Kant believed that humans depend too much on others by basing their decisions and thoughts solely on the words of others. Due to dependency, humankind developed a habit of laziness throughout time. This habit eventually serves as the main barrier prohibiting one from being enlightened because one is too lazy to seek the truth or oneself. Kant suggested that in order to each enlightenment, one must not be afraid to take the first step and use one’s own judgment and understanding. One must separate oneself from immaturity, and to achieve that, one must have fearlessness and vigor. Kant also speaks of freedom and suggested that one should have the freedom to express their opinion and act on it, one should be able to criticize what is wrong and change it.

What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents two cases known as Rescue I and Rescue II. In these cases, one must create a dissimilarity between doing and allowing. They must ask themselves what would be the moral thing to do. Philosophers have tried to explain the concept of morals and ethics and create systems to relate the two. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are both two of these kind of philosophers. They express conditions on morality which are then applied to an ethical position. These conditions both explained what they believed is right and wrong and who benefits from what, but they are very different. Mill and Kant’s ethical positions foil one another and are very necessary when being applied to Foot’s thought experiment. This begs the question if you will do things to save the greatest number, or if you would do things strictly because it feels right. In Rescue I and Rescue II, Mill would provide happiness for the 5 individuals, while Kant would give life to whomever needed it simply because of his “good will.”

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Immanuel Kant was a famous philosopher whose philosophical influences impacted almost every new philosophical idea, theory, concept etc. In a sense, he was considered the central face of contemporary philosophy. Kant spent his whole life in Russia. Starting out as a tutor, to then a professor, he lectured about everything; from geography to obviously philosophy. In his early life, he was raised to emphasize faith and religious feelings over reason and theological principles. As he got older though, that position changed. It then became that knowledge is necessarily confided and within the bounds of reason. Now with this in mind, Kant claims many different things that derive from this. There are many different parts and aspects to it which is why it relates to almost every philosophical idea out there. Kant referred his epistemology as “critical philosophy” since all he wanted to do was critique reason and sort our legitimate claims of reasons from illegitimate ones. His epistemology says that we can have an objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world, and that science cannot tell us about reality. He claims science cannot tell us anything because it only tells us about the world as it is perceived, whether it’s based on measures, manipulations, experiments and so on. Kant says that we all have knowledge; that the mind and experience work together and that we construct and gain this knowledge by both reason and experience.

John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant would have very easy explanations on their views on the following case: Amy is very hungry, and considers the following plan: walk into a restaurant, order and eat the food, and walk out without paying. The wrongness of the act is practically self-explanatory. It is wrong to get away with a service that needs to be paid for. Aside from the fact that such act is illegal, because after all, Amy would technically be stealing from the restaurant, it is also morally wrong. Following the consideration of whether the act is wrong, Mill has a better explanation of why it is than Kant.

ABSTRACT: In moving away from the objective, property-based theories of earlier periods to a subject-based aesthetic, Kant did not intend to give up the idea that judgments of beauty are universalizable. Accordingly, the "Deduction of Judgments of Taste" (KU, § 38) aims to show how reflective aesthetic judgments can be "imputed" a priori to all human subjects. The Deduction is not successful: Kant manages only to justify the imputation of the same form of aesthetic experience to everyone; he does not show that this experience will universally occur in response to the same objects. This is what I call Kant’s Problem of Particularity. After critiquing Anthony Savile’s attempt to

What it takes to be free does not necessarily mean escaping tangible shackles that binds around our wrists and ankles, but this could be removing the limitations that are put on specific people based on their status or gender. Immanuel Kant (1784) approaches the theme of ‘being free’ in ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’ that is about reaching a psychological state, which is to able express and act freely without being guided by the monarchy. However, Mary Wollstonecraft’s (1792) ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ conveys ‘being free’ as giving females identical opportunities and treatments that males receive. Although both these authors approach what it takes to be free in their respective texts, however, they discuss about separate matters regarding this topic.

One of the philosophers that impact society is Immanuel Kant; he was a philosopher in the 18th century. Immanuel Kant was born in April 22, 1724 in Kingdom of Prussia, German and died on February 12, 1804 at age 79. Philosopher Immanuel Kant composed different point of views to courage that we understand the world better. Kant is trying to tell us that there are many things that evolve around this world and that every little single element that we do makes the world what it is.

The idea of an action to be intrinsically good is not as straight forward as proposed by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill in The Groundswork and Utilitarianism respectively. Kant, in The Groundswork, and Mill, in Utilitarianism, come to different conclusions about what is intrinsically good, yet neither of them come to a valid explanation for the following reasons; Kant produces a narrow view focused entirely on having a good will, acting only based off of duties, and ignoring the outcomes of your actions, while Mill calculates intrinsic value based off of the greatest happiness principle which doesn’t take into account a good will. The correct and most reasonable explanation of what is intrinsically good is a combination of what both

The most important trait in defining art is its beauty. As complex as the term “art” can be, the term “beauty” is nearly just as complicated. In order to understand art more clearly it is important to understand beauty. “We label an object beautiful because it promotes an internal harmony or ‘free play’ of our mental faculties; we call something ‘beautiful’ when it elicits this pleasure.” (Freeland 8). As defined above, beauty is not a direct message. It is something that subconsciously allows man to feel good and pleasurable. There is “an internal harmony” when we observe something beautiful that allows us to take away a deeper understanding of a work of art regardless of it being “nice looking” or “ugly”.

In his essay writing “What is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” (Kant, 1). In order for us to completely understand this definition, we must first understand what Kant meant by “Immaturity”. In the writing Kant defines immaturity as “the inability to use one’s understanding without the guidance from another”(Kant, 1). Furthermore, Kant believes that this immaturity is self-imposed, and that it is the individual’s fault for lacking the courage and resolve to think for themselves, but instead pay others to think and understand for them. I substantially agree with this idea, however, his remarks on immaturity in relation to the government, the way people should live, and religion is quite impetuous and irrational. Likewise, I do agree that people should be able to live freely, and think for themselves, however I do not agree that they have to live without rules, regulations or a government. In his essay Kant says “. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.”(Kant, 1). Kant believes that these guardians restrain our minds and have us lack the capabilities to think for ourselves. However, I believe that these same guardians are those entities that help nurture our mind and enable us to think

Some forms of art hold a certain form of purpose. Fine arts hold a communication of ideas as its purpose. For example, Music and Theater usually project a particular message for the audience to adhere to. It can have everything to do with politics or display awareness for a specific cause. In Edward Bullough’s “'Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle,” his essay published in the British Journal of psychology in 1912, on how people usually would distant themselves from ordinary involvement in art; paying no mind to what is surrounding us on whether something is consider "art" or worth worrying about. Kant's theory differs, continues to say the we are barely able to avoid recognizing something that is art.