Kant’s Aesthetic Theory and the Problem of Particularity Essay

In this article, Norman proves his point of “attractive things work better” by discussing the effects of usability, practicality, and aesthetics. It is similar to the argument of beauty vs. brains. Can humans overlook flaws of an object just because of its aesthetics? Do people really tend to choose things that put practicality of an object on the back burner for the way it looks? Depending on the occasion- yes. Aesthetics are a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art. Norman also discusses the differences between affect and cognition, as well as how it ties into his point of “attractive things work better.” He uses the term “affect” because it is a more neutral term. In his article, “affect” is demonstrated as a judgmental processing system that helps to portray negative and

Kant elucidate the meaning of human good by talking about three qualities: power, pleasure and dignity. By reading each of the philosopher’s text individually, the reader is able to recognize which quality is most imperative to each philosopher. Additionally, each philosopher illuminates the importance of that certain good and provides a feasible reason for their choosing by presenting general ideas that enables the reader to gain a meticulous understanding of their subjective meaning of each good and its importance.

Kant argues that beauty is symbolic of morality. Werner S. Pluhar states, “Only man is capable of an ideal of beauty, and the ideal involves the concept of man’s

Many people agree with Kant that it is fair to judge others for only what they can control. However, Kant’s theory only works on paper––do we even have control over

Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics of morals offer a well thought out and complex set of formulations that give rational beings the opportunity to be autonomous from outside factors and make moral decisions. In theory, Kant’s metaphysics of morals and a careful use of the categorical imperative are needed to create what Kant describes as the “kingdom of ends”. Kant oversimplifies certain questions certain ideas, presuming the answers are “rational” when in reality the answers really depend on multiple assumptions that cannot be nullified in making moral judgments. After a carefully researched analysis of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, why the metaphysics of morals is necessary according to Kant, and critiques of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, my contention is that Kant’s metaphysics of morals is flawed, not wholly applicable to the real current world, and therefore not convincing.

This article is about philosophy and literature, and the interaction between the two. The literature this article primarily refers to is, of course, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The philosophy is largely the philosophical ideas of famous philosopher Immanuel Kant, as written in his Critique of Judgment. There are quite a few ideas in this article, but the basis of them all is what Freeman declares her thesis to be, that “ Victor Frankenstein’s Monster is the third [AKA of Judgment] Critique’s heir, and that we are its inheritor.” That Frankenstein is the reply to the ideas of the Kant, and that we are built upon the two.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” People hear it all the time, but is this really true? Is one’s perception of beauty defined by their own standards, the world’s standards, or by the standards of the One who created us? For centuries, philosophers have questioned the meaning of beauty, but do not know that the true meaning of beauty is plain and simple. Despite have far we’ve come in society, many still question their own worth and beauty.

Kant has made a difference in metaphysics and epistemology yet his contributions to ethics have been even more substantial. In Kant’s view, the feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. This is very interesting because a lot of times, we only worry about the outcome of the action instead of our intention behind it. The motive that can award an act with moral value, he argues, is one that arises from universal principles discovered by reason.  Kant says “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant's next concern is with the faculty of judgment, "If understanding

Beauty as seen through the eyes of the beholder infers a subjective point of view when people consider what truly defines beauty. While this ambiguous claim is still relevant in modern society, it originates with the author Margaret Wolf Hungerford and traces back to the ancient times of the Greek philosopher Plato (“Eye”). Furthermore, individuals can also vacillate on their interpretation of what is being seen in an image, as in the case of colors, where responses may vary based on how the eye perceives the image. For some, the color green may give the impression of blue, while for others red might appear orange. This may seem to be a rather unimportant component of daily living; however, it is actually ironic how color significantly plays

The brains-in-a-vat picture argues that both these worlds can be the same thing or that the world-in-itself doesn't even exist, because all we can perceive is the patches of light and whatever comes from our sensory inputs. Kant's strategy is neither a response or a a dissolution to secure reliability of inductive reasoning. Kant never

53). It is only when we apply thought to objects and/or people that we believe demonstrate beauty, that the judgement can then become universal. This presumes, per Kant, sensus communis; a consensus of state. When telling others our judgements of taste, it is seen as universal as they ought to share it on pain of making a judgment which is incorrect or inappropriate. (Zangwill, 2014) This would be why we do in fact look to others to share our judgment. Kant attributed the notion that judgements of taste can be applied to everyone to a priori and posteriori knowledge.

This movement away from feelings and towards foundational principles of taste is where Kant most explicitly diverges from Hume. These ‘a priori foundations of taste’, as I have called them, can unite one with the human race at large. A judgment of taste, to Kant, is what you share with your neighbor, what unites you to your species, it is to speak with a universal voice. When we employ this voice, we have certain expectations; namely, we except others to assent to the views expressed. Although, how do we properly use this voice so apparent within us? The four moments Kant presents in Critique of Judgment are part of a social/moral training in becoming a critic capable of doing so. In this way, coming to agreement is to come to know or grasp that which ought to be shared by all humans, and is deeply rooted in our common sense cognitive capacities.

Philosophers Immanuel Kant and Edward Bullough each believe that there is a clear difference between the agreeable and the beautiful. One might note a similarity between these two philosopher’s writings and the works of philosopher David Hume. David Hume formed a standard for the judgment of taste, where these philosophers create a standard for judgment based upon beauty. Kant and Bullough concur that the agreeable is a critic’s personal opinion: an opinion that others are free to disagree with. It gratifies some desire of the senses. Kant believes that it is not up to humans to decide what we find agreeable, but it is up to our psychology. We do not consciously decide what satisfies this, and we cannot change this desire based on will. Beautiful,

For centuries the human race has struggled and grappled with the definition of the word beautiful. After all, what constitutes as being beautiful? In the simplest of forms, beauty could be defined as an existence that is aesthetically pleasing to the mind and the senses. However, some consider beauty to be more complex than just an object that is pleasing. This conversation is made more complicated when one considers the existence of unconventional beauty, or things that would not normally be considered beautiful. The reality is, that due to the fact that each person may regard beauty different depending on their taste in art, film and music, the definition is subject to change, on a case by case basis. Art that invokes feelings of contentment or glee is not resolutely the only things that can be seen as pleasurable. There is also perceived beauty in art that arouses feelings of melancholy, misery and desolation.

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from