Guyer Paul
Department of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania, 433 Claudia Cohen Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6304, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2008 Dec;39(4):483-94. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.09.010.
Contrary to both his own intentions and the views of both older and more recent commentators. I argue that Kant's aesthetics remains within the confines of eighteenth-century aesthetics as a branch of empirical psychology, as it was then practiced. Kant established a plausible connection between aesthetic experience and judgment on the one hand and cognition in general on the other, through his explanatory concept of the free play of our cognitive powers. However, there is nothing distinctly 'a priori' or 'transcendental' in his claim that this state of mind is what causes our pleasure in beauty or other aesthetic properties. Nor did Kant establish a genuinely a priori or transcendental principle that all human beings have the same disposition to experience a free play of their cognitive powers, let alone in response to the same objects. This failure, however, in no way limits the continuing significance of Kant's aesthetic theory.
与他自己的意图以及早期和近期评论家的观点都相反,我认为康德美学仍处于18世纪美学的范畴内,作为经验心理学的一个分支,就像当时所实践的那样。康德通过他关于我们认知能力自由游戏的解释性概念,在一方面的审美经验与判断和另一方面的一般认知之间建立了似是而非的联系。然而,他声称这种心理状态是我们对美或其他审美属性产生愉悦感的原因,这一说法并没有明显的“先天的”或“先验的”特征。康德也没有确立一个真正先天的或先验的原则,即所有人类都有相同的倾向去体验他们认知能力的自由游戏,更不用说对相同的对象做出反应了。然而,这一失败丝毫没有限制康德美学理论持续的重要性。