A SUMMARY
Immanuel
Kant. My first research of anything usually starts at Wikipedia, although the
validity of the source is still questionable. Still an efficient start though…
Firstly, I
read about him being mentioned by John Mcarthur and Naomi Stead in
The Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory where
his ideas considered as strongest philosophical expression of modern ideas on
aesthetic feelings and practices.
His philosiphical ideas in aesthetic related with theological theory; and his
discussion ranges between churches and religious architecture.
This notes related with his view of judgment of
taste.
Who is Kant?
Directly
quoted from Wikipedia
Immanuel Kant (German: [ɪˈmaːnu̯eːl
kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher who is widely considered to be a central figure of modern
philosophy. He argued that fundamental concepts structure human
experience, and that reason is the source of morality. His thought continues to
have a major influence in contemporary thought, especially the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.[1]
1.
The judgment of
taste is aesthetic
The word
‘aesthetic’ itself, according to Oxford Dictionary, is developed in late 18th
century. It is spoken as ‘relating to perception by the senses’. Aesthetics
origin is from Greek aisthētikos, fromaisthēta 'perceptible
things', from aisthesthai 'perceive'.
The sense 'concerned with beauty' was
coined in German in the mid-18th century and adopted into English in
the early 19th century, but its use was controversial until much later in the
century.
Aesthetic
judgment in Kant terminology is a kind of judgment which is not logical, purely
base on feeling. Later in the book, Kant gives the definition of Taste: “Taste
is the faculty for judging an object or a kind of representation through a
satisfaction or dissatisfaction without
any interest”.
Andr he also gives definition of beautiful: “That is beautiful which pleases
universally without concept”.
“Beauty is a form of the purposiveness of an object, insofar as it is perceived
in it without representation of and end.”
The definition of purposiveness explained in 10th point. Last
definition of beauty: “That is beautiful which is cognized without concept as
the object of necessary satisfaction”.
2.
The satisfaction
that determines the judgment of taste is without interest
And he also
give a definition of interest: a satisfaction that we combine with the
representation of the existence of an object.
Interest
/ˈɪnt(ə)rɪst [MASS
NOUN] The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or
someone: ‘she looked about her with
interest[IN SINGULAR]: he developed an interest in art.
After
discuss this reading in my research group, I found that ‘interest’ that Kant
uses means that the person can take benefit from the object, including benefit
in form of pleasure feeling or satisfied the need.
This part
reminds me of the book Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
about how Little Prince’s interest in the Rose make his judgment of the flower too
bias. However the judgment in this story is not related with beauty in
appearance only, but also in inner quality. So probably this kind of judgment
will be more related with Kant’s following explanation.
3.
The satisfaction
in the agreeable is combined with interest
Kant’s
definition of agreeable is: that which pleases the sense in sensation.
He explains that everything that please, just because it pleases, is agreeable.
And there is variation of agreeable sensations: graceful, lovely, enchanting,
enjoyable, etc.
Please /pliːz/ [WITH
OBJECT] 1 Cause to feel happy and satisfied: ‘he arranged a fishing trip to
please his son’ [WITH OBJECT AND INFINITIVE]: ‘it pleased him to be seen
with someone in the news’SensatioN
/sɛnˈseɪʃ(ə)n NOUN
1 A physical feeling or
perception resulting from something that happens to or comes into contact with
the body: ‘a burning sensation in the
middle of the chest’
I have to say here that what I perceive from Kant’s point is
that the term ‘agreeable’ is constantly related with please. Referring to
Kant’s explanation, agreeable is really subjective. It is a matter of whether
the subject feel pleased no matter how the object is. Kant also states that
‘hence one says of the agreeable not merely that it pleases but that it
gratifies.
Gratify /ˈɡratɪfʌɪ/ VERB (gratifies, gratifying, gratified) [WITH OBJECT] 1 Give (someone) pleasure or
satisfaction: ‘she was gratified to see the
shock in Jim’s eyes’ (as adjective gratifying) ‘the results were gratifying’ ORIGIN
late Middle English (in the sense 'make pleasing'): from
French gratifier or Latin gratificari 'give or do as a
favour', from gratus 'pleasing, thankful'.[15]
Well, gratify is more to thankful feeling, I suppose.
4.
The satisfaction in the good is combined with
interest
Concept of
the good is more closely related to the usefulness. “…when I call something
that gratifies at the same time good can be seen from the fact that in the case
of the good there is always the question whether it is merely mediately good or
immediately good (whether it is useful or good in itself)”.
“In
order to find something good, I must always know what sort of thing the object
is supposed to be”. It means that there is an
interest to the object. Case closed.
5.
Comparison of the three specifically different
kinds of satisfaction
This part is
the conclusion. “Agreeable is that which everyone calls what gratifies him;
beautiful, what merely pleases him (without interest - ed); good, what is
esteemed, approved”.
And it also related with “to inclination, to favor, and to respect”.
Esteem /ɪˈstiːm/
VERB
[WITH
OBJECT] 1 Respect and admire: ‘many of these qualities are esteemed by
managers’ (as adjective, with submodifier esteemed) ‘a highly esteemed scholar’.Inclination /ɪnklɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n / [MASS NOUN] 1 A person’s natural tendency or urge
to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition: ’John was a scientist by
training and inclination’ ’Fanny showed little inclination to talk about
anything serious’ [COUNT NOUN]: ‘he was free to follow his inclinations’ (inclination for/to/towards) An interest in
or liking for (something): ‘my inborn inclination for
things with moving parts’.
In this part
Kant refer to favor as the only free
satisfaction.
6.
The beautiful is
that which, without concept, is represented as the object of a universal
satisfaction.
The
definition of beautiful in this part is deduced from “object satisfaction
without any interest”.
In this term, someone who said that an object is beautiful must aware that
universally everyone else will also call the object beautiful, not just
himself. “…must contain a ground of satisfaction for everyone…”
7.
Comparison of the
beautiful with the agreeable and the good through the above characteristic
Can I
conclude that taste is universal according to Kant’s description?
8.
The universality
of the satisfaction is represented in a judgment of taste only as subjective
I don’t
understand this particular part, because the statement itself is
contradictive. How can the judgment of taste become universal and subjective at
the same time? Is that means that within everyone there is a same barometer to
judge the object beautiful or not at the first glimpse (without interest)?
9.
Investigation of
the question: whether in the judgment of taste the feeling of pleasure precedes
the judging of the object or the later precedes the former
How and
whether aesthetic judgment a priori is possible? So the judgment, even though
singular and without comparison to others, is in agreement with the condition
of universality.
10. On purposiveness in general
Can I say
that purposiveness is the essential quality of the object? This purposiveness
related to the essential from in which the object should being represented. And
in this part it is important to remember that in a pure judgment we better don’t
know about the function or the concept of the object.
11. The judgment of taste has nothing but the form of the
purposiveness of an object (or the way of representing it) as its ground
In this part
Kant discuss about the mere form of purposiveness of the object that is given
to us, can constitute the satisfaction that we judge.
I want to ground a question: is this related to honesty, simplicity and banal
representation of the object, is purposiveness is indeed an essential quality
of the object?
12. The judgment of taste rests on a priori ground
A priori
means that it is deduced from theory or already within human being, not from
observation or experiments
13. The pure judgment of taste is independent from charm
and emotion
Pure
judgment is without interest. Ok. But when I read this part I am actually
confused. Judgment of taste is based on feeling – it’s aesthetic. How can it be
detached from emotion? Because emotion means there is an interest in there? It
is actually explained later in 14th point.
14. Elucidation by means of examples
Aesthetic judgment
can be divided into empirical and pure. The more simple the form, the more pure
the judgment. (?) An object doesn’t have to have charm in order to be called
beautiful. Kant gives a definition of emotion: a sensation in which
agreeableness is produced only by means of a momentarily inhibition followed by
a stronger outpouring of the vital force.
15. The judgment of taste is entirely independent from the
concept of perfection
Because perfection
needs concept. Simply.
16. The judgment of taste through which an object is
declared to be beautiful under the condition of a determinate concept is not
pure
In this part
he gives an example of flower and botanist. How we, ordinary people can judge
the beauty of the flower purely because we are detached from all the knowledge
of the structure, function, system, of the flower. This situation also applied
to architect when judging a building. Can an architect judge a taste of
building with all the concept that he has about architecture.
17. On the ideal of beauty
In this part
Kant tries to explain that the faculty of judgment of taste is empirically
shown deeply buried in all human being, of unanimity in the judging of forms
under which objects are given to them.And
it means that some products of taste are regarded as exemplary or could be
acquired by imitating others. I want to give simple example here. When we first
learn how to judge taste of food whether it is sour, sweet, salty, spicy, etc.
We recognize the taste itself instantly but we learn how to address the taste
from others. The parent said “this is sweet” while we taste honey and sugar, so
we recognize that kind of sense we experience on our tongue is sweet.
But as it is
already discussed before. Beauty is universal and the judgment of taste is
without interest.
Kant gives
definition of idea: a concept of reason; and ideal: the representation of an
individual being adequate to an idea. While talking about the ideal beauty then
it is not speaking about the pure judgment of taste anymore, but a partly intellectualized
judgment of taste.
There are
two elements involved: the aesthetic normal idea = an individual intuition; and
the idea of reason = more closely with the experience gathered from nature.
There is an example, what if, the ideal is empirically processed within the
human, because the idea of reason is gathered from experience of nature. Then
Chinese people, white people, Indonesian people will have different kind of
ideal beauty. And then the beauty is about the correctness of the species, the
correctness within a Chinese beauty only, for example. The judgment of ideal
beauty, then, is not a pure judgment of taste. This judgment with standard can
never be purely aesthetic.
18. What the modality of a judgment of taste is
That the
judgment of taste at least possibly combined with a pleasure.
19. The subjective necessity that we ascribe to the
judgment of taste is conditioned
What is the
condition? That all the data that are required for the judging is given, as the
rule of approval of everyone else. The judgment should be also common to all.
20. Condition of necessity that is alleged by a judgment
of taste is the idea of a common sense
So in this
part Kant gives a definition of common sense: “a subjective principle, which
determines what pleases or displeases only through feeling and not through
concept, but yet with universal validity.”
And the term common sense is different with collective majority census/
opinion.
21. Whether one has good reason to presuppose a common
sense
The
universal communicability presupposes a common sense. The common sense actually
must be able to be assumed with good reason, and indeed without appeal to
psychological observations, but rather as the necessary condition of the
universal communicability of our cognition.
22. The necessity of the universal assent that is thought
is a judgment of taste is a subjective necessity, which is represented as
objective under the presupposition of a common sense
The most
interesting explanation is even though the judgment of taste is universal and
when we call something beautiful then everyone should agree; it does not say
that everyone will agree. They should.
Bibliography:
The little
prince, San Diego :, Harcourt.
