Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein Se te!

"er #$ 2007

The New School for Social Research Fall 2007

%hiloso hy is defined or constituted "y its re udiation of art • first$ e! tyin& it of any si&nificance '%lato( art is !ere co ies of co ies$ e he!eral$ illusions$ stirrin& irrational e!otions) • second$ a ro riatin& its re!nants '"eauty as an introduction to the &ood* "eauty as e+idence of rationality) Philosophy be o!es philosophy by "e#yi#$ %h&% i% is &'% 'it !ay not "e science$ "ut at least not art), The dignity of hiloso hy is its re udiation of art, -hat’s left o+er. /ead re!nants, -itness what hiloso hy ne+er tal0s a"out( food$ se1$ children$ dru&s$ fi&htin&$ etc,$ 2 i,e, thin&s that relate to our interest in the world$ our "ein& li+in& "ein&s$ tryin& to re roduce our for! of life, 3lso( thin&s that !a0e life interestin&4 %lato( let’s let the erson who is not interested in life at all rule 'the hiloso her50in&)$ because he is disinterested$ and therefore can rule !erely accordin& to ideas, cf, /anto’s essay on the Wake of Art) hiloso hical disenfranchise!ent of art ' The

6ne of the reasons %lato thou&ht hiloso hers should "e 0in&s is that they$ concerned only with ure for!s$ could not coherently ha+e any interests in the world of a earances, Not "ein& !oti+ated "y what nor!ally !o+es !en and wo!en 7 !oney$ ower$ se1$ lo+e 7 they could achie+e disinterested decisions, cf Susan Ko8el’s Closer on the relationshi of dance to technolo&y$ and 9el!uth %lesner’s Laughing and Crying,


Since who could feel e1alted at ossessin& what !erely appeared to "e &old. Kant is a %latonist$ de loyin& a +ersion of e he!erali8ation and ta0eo+er.ust read it in relation to the rest of Kant. 2 contrary readin&s( 2. Since to "e hu!an is +ery lar&ely to have interests$ art stands outside the hu!an order retty !uch as reality stands outside the ri!ary a arent order in %lato’s syste!. This is hiloso hy decidin& what it wants to "e when it &rows u . So$ thou&h they a roach the issue in o osite directions$ the i! lication is that art is an ontolo&ical +acation5 lace fro! our definin& concerns as hu!an$ and with res ect to which$ accordin&ly$ !a0es nothin& ha en. Kant is critiquin& that e1clusion$ instead holdin& to the necessity$ una+oida"ility and una ro ria"ility of life and art.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 %lato cle+erly situates wor0s of art outside the ran&e of interests as well.h&% i% is %h&% philosophy h&s %'&"i%io#&lly le*% o)%Kant$ in a fu!"lin& way$ 0new that these two heno!ena were related.e &'e %hi#(i#$ &bo)% . 2. %hiloso hy eschews "oth 5 life and the re roduction of life 5 art Note that the Third Critique has two arts( one of life$ one on art. • Su ort for the first readin&( < he!erali8ation( 2 . 2st readin& 7 analytic 2nd readin& 7 continental . The :rd Kr is an an1ious te1t$ "ased on the intuition that life and art cannot "e left "ehind$ "ut the ac0nowled&e!ent of life and art within it is syste!atically frau&ht. I# %hi#(i#$ &bo)% %he o##e %io# between li*e &#" &'%+ .

e. Kant’s hiloso hy "e&ins with the ro"le! 7 definiti+e of the !odern situation 7 of %he "ise# h&#%!e#% o* #&%)'e$ as "rou&ht a"out "y Newtonian hysics. This readin& of the :rd Kr also ins ires . 3s Cel0ley 'The Ends of Reason) ar&ues$ the hu!an !oti+ation "ehind Kant’s syste! was his o# e'# *o' %he !e&#i#$ o* *'ee"o! &#" !o'&li%y i# li$h% o* %he )#"e#i&ble )#i0e's&li%y o* %he Ne. /oes not &i+e 0nowled&e. @u0acs$ 3dorno$ BenAa!ic$ <a&leton$ Ja!eson 7 >let’s thin0 a"out art?4 To read Kant in this way is not to read the : rd Kr as a su le!ent to the first two$ "ut as su lyin& an i! licit critique of the! 'e+en lea+in& the! in tatters). The :rd Kr is %he U'. That is$ erfectly useless. 3 .erleau5%onty$ @yotard and /eleu8e find in the aesthetic su ressed for!s of !odes of interaction with the world. 9eide&&er$ .ar1ists( @yotard 'Trots0yist) defines hi!self as a >Third Critique Kantian?. Bn short$ Kant can "e read as a su er conser+ati+e$ or an unwillin& radical. 3rt &i+es us >disinterested leasure? 'or in /anto’s words$ >te id &ratification?$ >narcole tic leasure?). They are internally ordered$ "ut not for anythin&.%e/% o* !o"e'# &es%he%i s 'e+erythin& since is a !ere footnote to it)$ "ecause it is where hiloso hy ta0es on its constituti+e e1clusions.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 Kant says wor0s of art are ur osi+e$ "ut without an e1ternal ur ose. For 9e&el$ it o ens u the question of history. there are ways of en&a&in& with o"Aects that are not scientific !odes or rational 'cf. For Schellin& and Niet8sche$ it oints to the ro"le! of life and the centrality of life. Ta0eo+er( 3rt is a sy!"ol of the !orally &ood. reflecti+e Aud&e!ent).%o#i&# sys%e!. • Su ort for the second readin&( The idea of aesthetic leasure and the en&a&e!ent with ur osi+e wholes yields a wholly different way of thin0in& a"out hiloso hy. <! ty of truth = !orality. i.

So!e conte! orary hiloso hers "ite the "ullet on this 7 naturalist e iste!olo&y finds so!e e+olutionary account of the nature of 0nowled&e itself.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 Kant was the first to reco&ni8e that the one thin& science can’t e1 lain is science$ as an account of the world.&. Kant says in the 2st Critique that he had to li!it 0nowled&e in order to !a0e roo! for faith. The uni+ersal rinci les of feelin&$ taste$ sensuous desire ". The issues that are central to the :rd critique were initially Kant’s lan for the 2st critique. art of Kant wrote to his student . i. a.arcus 9ert8 in 2772 that he was re arin& a "oo0 to "e called The Limits of Sensibility and Reason$ that would consist in two arts( 2. 4 . The faith he was concerned with was the faith in freedom and reason 7 not Eod.? Duine( Tries to &i+e a naturalist account of science$ "ut cannot do so e1ce t "y fud&in& on what is !eant "y reason or rationality. %ierce( >Nature &rows 0nowers in order to 0now itself. The !oti+atin& question "ein&( Can we !a0e sense of oursel+es as rational and !oral creatures. e. the first rinci les of !orality. The initial &esture of Kant’s entire hiloso hical roAect is a 'i%i1)e o* i#s%')!e#%&l 'e&so# 'for if that’s all there is$ then there is no reason at all 7 only calculation). 3 &eneral heno!enolo&y$ and the nature and !ethod of !eta hysics 2.e. For the scholastics$ these cate&ories were unified$ literally$ in Eod. e+erythin& in the 2st Kr$ 2nd Kr$ and e+en !ore than is in the :rd Kr 3lternati+ely 'to a critique of instru!ental reason)$ Kant can also "e descri"ed as &i+in& us a 'i%i1)e o* !e%&physi s( he &i+es us a !odern treat!ent of the transcendental ideas of the scholastic tradition( truth '2st Kr)$ &oodness '2nd Kr) and "eauty ':rd Kr). 'Newtonian theory can’t account for Newtonian theory.) Bn a erfect Newtonian uni+erse$ there would "e no roo! for truth or reason or science 7 it would "e deter!inis! all the way down.

o'l". -hat is it for hu!an "ein&s$ who can reflecti+ely deter!ine their own conduct$ to act well. The %reface to the Second <dition of the 2st Kr >9itherto it has "een assu!ed that all of our 0nowled&e !ust confor! to o"Aects. inde endent of the world G !eta hysical 0nowled&e Can we ha+e synthetic a riori 0nowled&e. The old questions 'a"out truth$ "eauty$ &oodness) are a denial of the hu!an ers ecti+e$ which is constituti+e of 0nowled&e and action 'the Co ernican turn).Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 -hat !a0es Kant !o"e'# is that he does not unify the!.e. The three critiques tal0 to one another$ "ut reason is essentially fra&!ented and cannot "e totali8ed. 5 . FFF E& h o* %he %h'ee 'i%i1)es !&(es %he Cope'#i &# %)'#cf. or( 9ow can hu!an "ein&s a roach saintliness. The totality of the world disa ears$ for us. <1 osin& those constituti+e li!its is what it !eans to 0now it all. The di+ine ers ecti+e is fore+er foreclosed "ecause there is #o s%&#"poi#% o)%si"e o* %he . 9e did not as0 the questions( 9ow can hu!an 0nowin& a roach di+ine 0nowin&. %ro"le!( how do we 0now whether our state!ents confor! to o"Aects$ when our relationshi to o"Aects is &i+en "y our state!ents a"out the!. The li!its of reason are the conditions of its ossi"ility. Kant tal0s a"out truth$ &oodness and "eauty fro! a truly h)!&# pe'spe %i0e. -e do not 0now thin&s in the!sel+es. 6ur li!its are constituti+e.? This is the assu! tion of !eta hysical realis!( that certain facts or states of affairs in the world are truth5!a0ers. a priori 0nowled&e G 0nowled&e inde endent of any articular e1 erience$ i. But( -hat is it for hu!an "ein&s$ who are "oth rational and sensi"le$ to ha+e access to a world e1istin& inde endently of the!. This is no deficiency$ "ut what it !eans to "e 'a) hu!an '0nower or a&ent).

The ossi"ility of e1 erience is Kant’s new 3rchi!edean oint. Hsee handout( 9ow to "eco!e a transcendental idealistI So$ "asically$ Kant is denyin& e iste!olo&y. @ei"ni8( -e &et it "y a ro er wor0in& out of analyticity$ sufficient reason. : initial !o+es( 2.e. 6 . <ach of the three critiques !eans to steer a course • be%. -e are i!!ediately aware of ideas in our own !ind. Bs there a way that o"Aects confor! to us$ and !ust confor! to us.ee# e!pi'i is! &#" '&%io#&lis! • "etween s0e tical su"Aecti+e idealis! and realis! • "etween a 9u!e who doesn’t "elie+e we 0now how thin&s are in the world$ "ut only what our e1 eriences are li0e$ and a @ei"ni8 who "elie+es we really 0now how thin&s are in the world Aust "y thin0in& a"out it Kant "elie+es that • there is not a unitary account of how thin&s are$ "ut %h'ee "i**e'e#% pe'spe %i0&l %&(es on the world 7 each irreduci"le to the other '!orality is not reduci"le to 0nowled&e$ "eauty is not !orality$ etc. we ercei+e with the !ind’s eye. -hat !ust we resu ose for the ossi"ility of e1 erience. Their !odel of 0nowin& was that of direct erce tion$ so that how we see thin&s with our hysical eye is how we see thin&s with our !ental eye.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 %lato( we &et it fro! !e!ory. Kant ta0es these to "e unsuccessful. <+ery hiloso her rior to Kant had conce tion of 0nowled&e that in+ol+ed !ental erce tion 7 i.)$ "ut which are not su"Aecti+e in the ne&ati+e sense • and e& h ers ecti+e is #e ess&'y 7 we cannot ha+e anythin& li0e our e1 erience of the world without these three 9ence the idea of the >%'&#s e#"e#%&l? G o osite of transcendent 'which !eans "eyond e1 erience)$ rather( the necessary conditions for the ossi"ility of e1 erience. -e !ust sto tryin& to 0now thin&s in the!sel+es$ and as0( /o o"Aects confor! to our 0nowled&e.

2.le"$e is 2)"$e!e#% 7 that is$ 0nowled&e is a relationshi "etween a su"Aect and an o"Aect$ "etween !y Aud&in& faculty$ and the o"Aect of that Aud&e!ent. 9u!e was ri&ht a"out causality 'and su"stance$ and the su"Aect) 7 B ercei+e only re&ularities$ not causality as such. the !aterial roAection of su"Aect and redicate). '>The lectern is "rown.All (#o. Jud&e!ent G synthesis. -e can only thin0 a"out the world the way we do if the world is structured to allow us to do that 7 i.) :. it requires 0nowled&e of states of affairs that ha+en’t ha ened4 2 -ays of orderin& and connectin& u our 7 . 9ow do we synthesi8e. There is a li!ited in+entory of *o'!s of Aud&e!ent 'S is %.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 Kant( This is a fiction. '-itt&enstein thin0s there are tons of these ri!iti+e for!s$ "ut has the sa!e "asic thou&ht as Kant. Bf J then J2) Bn other words$ the hu!an !ind is equi ed with a ri!iti+e transcendental &ra!!ar.e. Kant’s !e%&physi &l "e") %io# 'B20#) The Aud&e!ent for! 'S is %) is how B turn !y e1 erience into 0nowled&e. 6ur ri!ary datu! are Aud&e!ents 7 which are already a relationship "etween a 0nowin& su"Aect and an inde endently e1istin& o"Aect.?) By articulatin& !y sensations in accordance with a Aud&e!ent for! 'and this is the only thin& we can do with our sensations$ in order to !a0e use of the!)$ B render the! a way of tal0in& a"out the world. Now$ we can only !a0e use of the su"Aect5 redicate for! if we treat the world as ha+in& su"stances and attri"utes 'i.e. sensory !anifold. there !ust not only "e a transcendental &ra!!ar$ "ut a transcendental se!antics. Kant &oes fro! synta1 to se!antics$ and fro! se!antics to synta1( -e can only !a0e use of the if5then for! of Aud&e!ent if there are causes and effects in the world$ and con+ersely$ there is no way to !a0e sense of the idea of causality unless you ossess the if5then for! of This latter is su"tle and fascinatin& "ecause it in+ol+es counter5to5fact conditionals$ i.e.

9owe+er so!e su"Aecti+e successions are also o"Aecti+e 'the "oat !o+in& down the strea!). The meaning of thin0in& of the world as causally structured is &i+en "y the way you are a"le to use the if5then structure. Kant on &)s&li%y 5 5 erce tion of a house erce tion of a "oat tra+ellin& downstrea! Bn "oth cases the initial datu! is structurally the sa!e$ na!ely$ it is co! osed of su"Aecti+e succession. @ei"ni8$ for who! s ace and ti!e are not real). 3ccordin& to Kant$ to thin0 of so!ethin& as outside !y !ind !eans to thin0 of it "ein& so!ewhere B a! not. This is not tri+ial( the notions of "ein& outside !y !ind$ and "ein& in s ace$ are not analytically lin0ed to one another. There are ways of thin0in& of thin&s "ein& outside !y !ind that do not in+ol+e the! "ein& in s ace '+i8. 5 5 house( the su"Aecti+e successions of an unchan&in& o"Aect are re+ersi"le 'or can "e erfor!ed in any order$ for that !atter) "oat( what !a0es the succession o"Aecti+e is that the state5 chan&in& successions occur accordin& to a rule 'of cause and effect) Knowin& the rule is what allows !e to see this as an e+ent$ and not an o"Aect. 3n e+ent is an e1 erience that occurs in accordance with a rule. 9ence$ we are a priori co!!itted$ Aust "ecause of our Aud&e!ental for!s$ to thin0in& a"out o"Aects as su"stances with ro erties$ causally related to one another. The law of cause and effect is necessary to ha+e e1 erience of e+ents. Bf we are stuc0 with our &ra!!atical for!s$ then equally we are stuc0 with the !aterial roAection of those &ra!!atical or Aud&e!ent for!s. 8 . Kant has to show why @ei"ni8 can’t "e ri&ht. For any o"Aect to "e outside any other o"Aect is for it to ha+e a s atial relationshi to it.Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 Aud&e!ent. S ace = the Transcendental 3esthetic Bt is a necessary condition for Aud&in& so!ethin& to "e outside !y !ind that it "e in s ace.

Rather$ s ace is a necessary condition of the ossi"ility of e1 erience. -e 0now$ a priori$ that for anythin& to "e an ob2e %$ it !ust "e( 5 so!ewhere 5 so!ewhen 5 a su"stance$ ossessin& ro erties 5 causally related to e+ery other su"stance$ e1istin& in s ace 5 and all state chan&es of those o"Aects are deter!ined "y laws of cause and effect The "eep s%') %)'es o* %he h)!&# i#%elle % 3 not %he 4o"5s eye poi#% o* 0ie. So$ Kant’s oint is that the structure of e1 erience reflects the structures of our !ind.o'l"-e end u with a Newtonian uni+erse$ not as what is !eta hysically real$ "ut si! ly as a function of how we !ust thin0 a"out thin&s as 0nowers. Kant is unearthin& the dee structures of hu!an thin0in& a"out the world.).6 $i0e )s %he s%') %)'e o* %he .Kant’s Third Critique Jay Bernstein The New School for Social Research Fall 2007 Kant is definin& s ace functionally$ as that which ro+ides the condition for o"Aect indi+iduation. 9 . S ace is not !eta hysically real 'for what would it then "e "ut a "i& un5thin&. -e ha+e$ a priori$ a conce t of an o"Aect. 3nd it can’t "e$ as Newton thou&ht$ Eod’s sensorium. Kant’s conce tion of s ace has to do with that transcendental function 'which ulti!ately !eans denyin& the identity of indiscerni"les).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful