Kant on the beautiful and taste: Critique of Judgment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Dr. Ellie Anderson, philosophy professor and co-host of Overthink podcast, discusses Kant's theory of aesthetics and explains the important moments of his systematic approach to taste and the beautiful. What does it mean to say that beauty is subjective? Textbook is Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology reader, ed. Cahn and Meskin (Blackwell, 2008).
This video is part of a series introducing philosophers' views of art and aesthetics.
For more from Dr. Anderson, check out Overthink on RUclips, or listen to our conversational podcast wherever you get your podcasts. We've got numerous audio podcast episodes on the philosophy of art!
Enjoy our work? Support Overthink via tax-deductible donation: www.givecampus...
Join our Patreon for exclusive episode segments, monthly Zooms, and more: / overthinkpodcast
Website: overthinkpodcast.com
Facebook: / overthink-podcast-1054...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzspro...
Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod
Once again, Professor Anderson takes you on a brief journey into extraordinary minds ! As an artist, the subject of aesthetics draws me in; with my love for wisdom, Kant is always welcome at my table. Thank you.
Oh pleass
@@user-ep6sq6kc5p could you elaborate on your comment? I find your username suspicious and lacking legitimacy.
I appreciate the length you chose. Enough to expose me to a lot of interrelated ideas, not so much that I need to set aside a full study period to get through it. Such an overview helps me orient myself when engaging with anything (e.g. on Kant’s esthetics) more long-form.
My favourite suggestion of a possible example of the beautiful was suggested by a friend in a seminar on the third critique: a sunset under a polluted sky, which creates a wild colourful canvas of light.
I read a portion of The Critique of Pure Reason years ago but never got around to exploring Kant's ideas on aesthetics so thank you for posting this interesting and informative lecture on his Critique of Judgment!
When I try a wine and I HATE it, but I can totally understand that it's good wine (no flaws, I can see why others might like it), I think that's what having "taste" is.
Apart from my subjective judgment, I can usefully apply the label "beautiful" to things I observe. To taste is to be a living being, but to have taste is to be human.
Very well put, I very much appreciate your comment as it helps me grasp Kant's notion of "disinterested taste" better (as it was one of the few concepts that remained vague to me after watching this video). Thanks!
Thanks!
Loved this video! Thank you for introducing this subject. ❤
I find this to be very powerful. Great lecture.
I Kant understand it😮
Yes, why does he divide it into 4 moments in the first place? Very confusing!
Kant's understanding of morality was FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.
This channel is huge. Thank you
I love your videos very much, wouldn't mind them if they were longer
The few times that I've heard other people talk about the Kritik der Urteilskraft, or read about it, either it was about other aspects, or I missed something, which is normal. You've made me want to bone up on the basics of what he had to say about aesthetics, as if I didn't have enough to do already...in any case, differentiating between charm, beauty and art, and implying that there is an objective standard for the latter, all of this is so different from what contemporary culture thinks about aesthetics. Nowadays, the first tenet seems to be that it's purely subjective, that art can only be talked about in terms of what it's about, rather than what it is. Of course, every painting instructor will instinctively bristle at the notion that facture is irrelevant, but my experience at art school thirty years ago was that, though this was the case, the teachers couldn't really be very precise about defining "good painting" (a term often used) because the criteria had been outsourced. My point is that there's an inherent hypocrisy in contemporary aesthetic theory, and that this has incredibly profound implications which could be loosely summed up as "anything goes" -- which I actually think of as linked to utilitarianism, "whatever it takes", which of course will always exclude poetry. Anyway, back to Kant in my usual cursory way.
Thank you very much for this short lecture. It would be great if you could do another video on the view of sublime in Kant’s aestethics.
Great and quite clear introductory explanation to a very complex and dark book such as the Kritik der Urtheilskraft.
Such an interesting topic, thank you for sharing!
Please make a podcast on politeness!!! Love your content
Thank you for these valuable lessons. They are very important and wonderful. At the same time, you explain in a fun and smooth manner. I would like to ask you a question: Who are the best philosophers throughout civilizational history, for example in the time of the Greeks or in the time of the Andalusian civilization, that is, the Arabs, or Western civilization such as Germany, France, and America?
Thanks for this. I've just been reading some excerpts from Critque of Judgement and came here hoping for some clarification of certain ideas. Was wondering if you had more to say on the following:
- What is a concept to Kant? At first, I was reading it as akin to a Platonic Form. But is it social in origin? Is it divine? Is it essential in some way?
- I really struggled with the idea of purposiveness. At first, it seemed to be that this was unique to manmade objects, something like an artistic intentionality behind the work. But then he seemed to mention purposiveness in nature too when discussing the sublime and this completely threw me. He also seemed, yes, to identify it as form - so is it something that belongs to the object, rather than the subject?
- Finally, I struggled with the idea that the subject who deems something beautiful is seeking to impress this idea on others - this felt like a lot like an interest to me - ie that the subject had an interest in spreading whatever instruction the object could lend to ideas about the good.
I may be way off base on all of these points. I found this hard-going and am confused as hell by a lot of it!
A friendly reminder that the 2nd edition of this volume is out since 2020, if someone is interested !
When I say, "I find the wine agreeable," there is something subjective about it, in the everyday sense of the word, personal and relative to me specifically, but if I say, "The Mona Lisa is beautiful," I'm saying something much stronger than the painting is pleasing to me personally. I mean it really and truly is beautiful--FULL STOP.
Thus our language reveals a deeper, universe subjectivity than mere personal feeling.
Hello dr. Ellie. Please make a video on modern idealism and philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup.
He wasn't an artist but Kant was a genious indeed! 😊 (with its modern meaning)
A recommendation for light reading: Wavewalker: Breaking Free by Suzanne Heywood. She writes "I grew up sailing around the world on a boat. My father set sail from England in 1976 on the Schooner Wavewalker with my brother, mother and me on board for what was supposed to be a three-year voyage but turned out to be a decade-long trip. While this meant that I saw a huge amount of our planet (though generally only the parts that are near sea level), it also meant that I was isolated as a child and struggled to get any formal education. Somehow, I managed to teach myself by correspondence and won a place to study at university. My book "Wavewalker" tells this story. It is both an adventure story and a coming-of-age story in a world that appeared idyllic but in reality was hugely challenging."
I think the idea of beauty is commonly associated with wanting the object. I find that people are confused when I talk of things that are beautiful, that I don't want.
I suspect this video is dangerously short, leading the susceptible (fool) to diving in.
Thanks for your videos.
Did burke’s philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful influence Kant? Thx for the video!
Do an episode on Muslim philosophers such as Muhammad Hussain Tabatabaei, Morteza Motahhari, and Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr... Please.
Great video, thank you, nts watched all of it 12:50
Need info on the textbook.
Wonderful. But I still wonder how this lovely journey of a mindset could end in Max Stirner
Stirner and Kant would've agreed that personal education is central to the virtue of honor, and they would've both agreed that nature abhors a vacuum, two sides of the same coin as it were, from G.L. Collins; "The opposite of complaisance is self-will...[however]...The determination of conduct by principles is no longer self-will; but if such determination relates to a private inclination, and not to what is generally pleasing, it is self-will, and a mark of stupidity"
Great
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
Incidentally, are you VEGAN?
It mostly went over my head 🤔lol. By the way can we call one who has studied philosophy for years a philosopher or it's an innate quality people may have in their blood?
?
So beauty is on the eye of the beholder?
Not if that means it’s relative to individual subjects.
What’s the name of the book
Shouldnt purposiveness be pronounced; ˈpɜː(ɹ)pəsɪvnəs?
My thoughts as well. I went to check, and you’re absolutely right!
Awesome video, very digestible and to the point
Beauty exists not as something preeminent(substantial) but by virtue of preconditioning. This preconditioning from which we receive our "determinants" of Beauty is Culture.Most of our contemporary ideas of beauty/aesthetics is from European Colonisation of the world.For Native Americans, Gold was a useless stone with no value (neither ornamental nor "intrinsic) until they came in contact with the Europeans. So many of our so called self-evident/natural tastes are infact rooted in our Culture!!.
For detailed, latest and the most scientific knowledge on the topic refer to the book written by one of the eminent sociologists of the 20th century Pierre Bourdieu: Distinction {A social critique on the judgement of "Taste"}
In which he discusses, with data from field trials/study , on how the dominant cultures impose their idea of (the legitimate)Taste on their Subjects, the "Mass".
[ Take your Language aka Culture away, viola there exists no beauty!! ]
The Distinctions is an argument for beauty's substantiation because it proves there are levels to understanding it, from the lowest to the highest forms, it proves that standards exist.
Beauty is subjective in the sense that there are many paths to it, not that everyone possesses or understands it. Beauty is like a language, and how you treat it and how you use it is the way you carve your aesthetics, depending if you are using it for something more than utility and basic survival.
his argument transferred to morals is way more intriguing...
Philosophy is about the
Over thinking idea people.
One's who see everything before their minds that
Search for themselves.
And to dare other's to think beyond
the reasons of control.
Wonderchek ///.
The exposition is, arguably, much too "academic" for a lay audience, which I'm assuming is the intended audience of this "mini-lecture." Even as a graduate of an MA program in philosophy, I found much of the presenter's sentence structure and word choice difficult to follow.
Now I understand whyy Kant died a virgin.
Dominoes of fallacy.. overall… he lived in such a dodgy epoch that was bereft the window into the past (human psyche) that all his concepts are skewed and irrelevant. I would expect a critique of his fallacies according to the benefits of having lived thru Dadaism and Surrealism. Kant is half of a philosopher that André Breton is.
Kant is rusty.
what ever 34+7=1 3 if he can't do this he is is not artist..
Kant is so vague bro
Kant was the worst thinker.
That’s a perfect demonstration of what terrible thinking looks like.
what is the name of the book you were reading the quote from, please?
I like you. You are so smart. 🫶🏻