McGowan 1

In Defense of Kant’s Aesthetics and its Historic Implications

Robert McGowan

In Immanuel Kant’s 1790 work, The Critique of Judgement (Third Critique), he

introduces arguable his most influential and difficult work of his three Critiques. Grounded in the

realm of aesthetic philosophy, Kant aims to create a scientific structure to the way aesthetic

judgments are created. Through this monumental undertaking, Kant sheds light on many

fundamental truths of the human condition that are not immediately apparent upon a superficial

inspection of such claims. Some examples of these (that will also be examined in more detail)

includes the subjective universality of beauty, the divide between beauty and the sublime, and

the ultimate superiority of the human reason above imagination which places humans on an elite

spiritual plain relative to nature, and thus, the world itself. These claims have been transformed,

critiqued, and expanded in subsequent schools of thought, yet it is the post-modernist rhetoric of

relativity which opposes Kant’s aesthetic philosophy most vehemently. To examine this

dichotomy of aesthetic dogma, an investigation in modern scientific research in the realm of

cognitive science is needed to mediate this gap. Similarly, alternative aesthetic theories from the

minds of great Romantic artists will prove to be fruitful in this discussion. Ultimately, a clearer

picture of Kant’s aesthetic implications will start to reveal itself.

In the Third Critique, Kant postulates that the totality of our aesthetic faculty is entirely

derived from our faculty of judgement. Though this has many implications, the main takeaway of

this is the assertion that our judgments of the beautiful are a purely subjective phenomenon. Just

as previous philosophers such as Burke have pointed out, beauty and its judgement is not

inherent in the object in of itself, but rather a judgment we ascribe to it as spectators. Here, Kant

adds that though this is a subjective observation, this subjectivity is also universal. This
 McGowan 2

seemingly contradictory concept of a subjective universality can only be grasped through the

lenses of Kant’s earlier works.

Transcendental idealism divides the world into two realms; the nominal and phenomenal.

According to Kant, much of what we think we know about the outside (nominal) world is a false

representation conjured by our phenomenal mind. Because of this divide, it is nearly impossible

to say for certain what the nominal realm consists of or if it is at all representative of our

phenomenal representation. Our cognitive faculties are thus broken down into the 12 categories

which Kant expands upon in his first critique. These 12 categories combine to create a range of

synthetic a priori knowledge of the world. Judgment is one of these, and thus organized by these

fundamental a priori principals. As a result, aesthetic judgements are a form of a priori

knowledge. As a further point, aesthetic judgements differ in a fundamental way from all other

cognitive mental faculties in the way that it is not cognitive in nature. Rather, it is what Kant

calls ‘disinterested’. A useful way to think about this is the fact that aesthetic tastes in judgement

are experienced passively; without any influence from our individual maxims or biases. This is

what makes aesthetic tastes of judgment universal (Kant, 1911).

What has been explained above is merely a snippet of Kant’s overall argument in his

Third Critique. Though not explicitly laid out in his critique, this idea of subjective universality

suggests the notion that beauty of a given object can potentially be felt universally. As an

epistemological claim, it must be stressed that beauty does not lie in the object itself, but in the

transcendental ideal of the observing subject.

This universality of subjective beauty has been highly criticized in recent generations for

the seemingly outdated theory that beauty is universal in some way. Most notable, Post-

Modernist theorist claim that all beauty is relative in some way. The core tenant of Post-modern
 McGowan 3

theory is a form of critical-think which places an air of skepticism to all forms of universal

claims. This manifest itself as a stance of hyper relativism to all forms of narrative structures. To

these thinkers, the fragmentation of personal identity bleeds into all forms of thought and this

causes us to experience a reality totally individualistic. This train of thought becomes a form of

empirical stance on a modern ‘tabula rasa’ theme where we are all born as a form of blank

mental slates.

The implications of this narrative on aesthetics is that our aesthetic taste is almost

completely relative, usually according to culture, and that no formal system of artistic theory can

be ascribed universally. This is clearly not the case when examining art theories which aims to

systematize our innate perception of the beautiful. An example of this can be seen in music

theory.

Music theory is essentially the study of predictable patterns in sound which culminate

into the perception of desirable sonorities (combination of pleasant sounds). These theories are

not arbitrary rules that are purely subjective according to the culture/environment you were

brought up in; rather they are guidelines and concepts that are innate to the listener. This is why

there are many gifted musicians that can “do” music without necessarily being taught. This

innate attraction to certain musical characteristics (tension and release based on consonant and

dissonant harmonies, attraction to certain combination of timbres, rhythmic complexity, ect…)

are clearly based on auditory physics and evolutionary psychology as it relates to this physics

(Scruton, 1997).

When systematized, we can see a clear correlation between this analytical form of artistic

formulation and Kant’s theory of subjective universality. As always, there are contradictory
 McGowan 4

elements to Kant’s theories which make it difficult to pin down. And example of this can be seen

on page 52 of The Critique of Judgement.

“There is no science of the beautiful, but only a critique. Nor, again, is there an elegant

(schöne) science, but only a fine (schöne) art. For a science of the beautiful would have to

determine scientifically, i.e., by means of proofs, whether a thing was to be considered beautiful

or not; and the judgement upon beauty, consequently, would, if belonging to science, fail to be a

judgement of taste.”(Kant, 1911, p.52).

Kant mediates this claim in subsequent section where he notes that what we perceive as

fine art is actually “Art of Geniuses”.

“Genius is the talent (natural endowment) which gives the rule to art. Since talent, as an

innate productive faculty of the artist, belongs itself to nature, we may put it this way: Genius is

the innate mental aptitude through which nature gives the rule to art.” .”(Kant, 1911, p.53).

As seen in these two passages, Kant is hesitant to use the word ‘science’ when applying

the innate knowledge, we all have towards creating art. Like many proprietary words throughout

the critique, the term ‘science’ and ‘genius’ meant something a bit different to him. This is in

part due to the translation. What Kant means is that aesthetic tastes in judgement cannot be

pinned down to an exact science, but rather forms of theory can be manufactured from our

common universal appreciation for art. The idea of the ‘genius’ is simply the abstract

manifestation of this aesthetic theory through transcendental idealism and the phenomenal realm.

As a parallel, the theories of Arthur Schopenhauer took the analytic perspectives of Kant

and furthered them into the romantic era. In his1819 book, The World as Will and

Representation, Schopenhauer agrees with Kant that the feature of space, time, and causality are

all features of the mind, yet departs from his notions in the belief that all objects in the world
 McGowan 5

depend on the mind for their exitance. Furthermore, Schopenhauer points out the necessity for a

ternary component of reality which is the cause of our representations of the world; hence the

Will. This Will, Schopenhauer believed, was the substratum which facilitates all living beings.

Unlike, Kant, Schopenhauer believed that there was a way an individual can objectively gaze

into this nominal realm (The Will), and that is through the observation of art. Because our

appreciation for art manifests itself in a passive, disinterested way, we essentially gaze into the

true nature of reality (Schopenhauer, 1958).

This tie between Schopenhauer’s ideas and Kant shows the evolution of the original

Third Critique into a foundation which later became the Romantic era of art and philosophy.

When looking closely at Kant’s aesthetics, we can see the embryo of this train of thought. In his

third critique, Kant makes a clear distinction between the beautiful and the sublime. According to

Kant, the subline is all that which is great and awe inspiring and fills us with feelings of

limitlessness and infinity. At the same time, it overwhelms the senses and instills in us a brief

sense of fear.

A further distinction between the beautiful and the sublime which is at the core of Kant’s

aesthetic philosophy is the notion that both the beauty and the sublime fall back on two different

faculties of the mind. On one hand, beauty relies on the understanding whereas the sublime realis

on reason. The distinction here is that understanding merely takes intuitions and transforms them

into concepts of the imagination, whereas reason takes these concepts and turns them into higher

laws. In essence, beauty is the harmony between our imagination and our understanding whereas

sublimity is the disharmony between imagination and reason. This distinction is the key to

Kant’s aesthetic as its implication reveals a rather romantic truth.

 McGowan 6

The disharmony instilled in us through the sublime is at constant tension when

experiencing aesthetic judgments. It is only when we surrender this understanding from the

imagination to the sense of reason is when this disharmony is alleviated. What this proves is that

our human faculty of reason and cognition is supreme to the phenomena of imagination and

sensation. Therefore, humanity reveals itself as a spiritual entity that is not tied to mere earthly

sensations but rather capable of surpassing nature herself with all her sublimity.

With all this in mind, we can see that the history of Kantian philosophy has had a myriad

of influences throughout the history of philosophy. The challenge that Post-modernism poses is

the deterioration of universal truths into a form of philosophy that is more pathos driven. What

we have seen is that Kant’s philosophy has bridged itself into the romantic era which was taken

up and modified by great thinkers such as Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche.

 McGowan 7

Works Cited

Kant, I., & Meredith, J. C. (1911). Kant's Critique of aesthetic judgement. Oxford: Clarendon

press.

Schopenhauer, A. (1958). The world as will and representation. [Indian Hills, Colo.]: Falcon's

Wing Press.

Scruton, R. (1997). The aesthetics of music. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press