to kant

Reading more poststructuralist theory than Kantian philosophy these days - some questions seems necessary to post:
1. Can aesthetic judgement be anything more than a construction based in the language in which it is articulated, a discursive practice?
2. Is there a subject who can have a privileged access to a transcendent realm of aesthetic judgement?
3. Is aesthetic value an effect of different practices and institutions, rather than something caused by artworks?
4. Is it a good idea to start questioning Kant without even having read him properly?
5. Is it possible to read Kant today?
6. Is it meaningful?



What seems clear is that you have to relate the discussion of aesthetics to a discussion on self and subjectivity. The status one gives to the subjective self is of great importance to any debate of (im)possible aesthetic judgement.

kant'en

There can be no rule according to which anyone is forced to recognize anything as beautiful.

The judgement of taste is based on the feelings of pleasure but also claims universal validity – yet judgement of taste cannot be proven since they do not rest on concepts or rules.

To Kant pleasure can be communicable only if it is based on a state of mind that is universally communicable. Since this judgement isn’t connected to concept, it must connected to ‘cognition in general’ as opposed to a particular cognitive state of mind - .

The judgement takes the form of a conceptual judgement, since we speak of beauty as if it were a property of things and say ‘the thing is beautiful’.

Kant read through the glasses of D.W.Crawford

I’m not sure that this has led me any further in my search for knowledge:

- What does he mean by subjective universality?

- How can anything be communicable without being based on concepts?