Kants Discussion of the Sublime Assessment - Essay Example

School: Topic: ASSESS KANTS DISCUSSION OF THE SUBLIME Lecturer: Introduction Philosophical enquiries into the understanding of the nature of sublime have been going on since the 17th century with major contributions by Kant in the 18th century. Kant discussed the nature of sublime in several editions of critiques but one of the last known and thus mostly referred to as his last thoughts were in Critique. In taking a position on the nature of sublime by critically comparing and contrasting the concept to beauty as both are considered critical in contemporary Aesthetics even though most philosophers have often placed more emphasis on the beautiful than sublime (Hopkins, 2001). In this paper, the idea of Kant on sublime is discussed by first explaining the two concepts of beauty and sublime so as to clearly distinguish sublime as an independent concept. There is there an overview of the major similarities existing between sublime and beauty, before delving into the differences. The relations between sublime and beauty are also established before looking at the various methods by which sublime may be identified. The concept of beautiful Kant opined that beauty has a connection with the form of an object as it has boundaries around which its aesthetic appreciation can be made based on an objective assessment of an observer (Illetterati, 2014). In effect, the judgment of beauty is an objective assessment of the desire for an object even though that particular feeling of pleasure does not develop the desire. By implication, beauty is a feeling that emanates from a person’s feeling rather than on subjective models of judgments such as colour, shape and size. It is not surprising therefore that Kant made a bold claim that beauty “is connected with the form of the object and has boundaries” (Kant, 1951, § 23). Because beauty is objective rather than subjective, Kant held that the beautiful pleases in its self and is devoid of any personal interest and sentiments (Savile, 1981). This means that beauty does not depend on a person’s judgement to make it beautiful as that aesthetic value is inherent in it and can thus please itself. The concept of sublime Sublime can be said to be a general quality of greatness given to something whether it is physical, moral, intellectual or even metaphysical (Brandt, 1989). Even though sublime is commonly defined and described from the basis of qualities including something that is elevated, lofty, and exalted, Kant viewed sublime to encompass the characteristic of grandeur rather than loftiness (Rueger & Evren, 2005). Throughout his writings Kant used specific descriptions and definitions to explain sublime, including the noble, the splendid, and the terrifying in his 1764 work titled Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. In his subsequent works, Kant came to explain that, “We call sublime which is absolutely great” (Kant, 1951, § 25). By implication, sublime is a remarkable quality of beauty that is actually beyond beauty because it is beyond the form of an object, representing boundlessness. It is therefore common to reason of sublime as being the embodiment of greatness beyond form. Because sublime is beyond form, it can easily be experienced when the human imagination fails to contain the greatness of an object or a natural event. Similarities between the beautiful and sublime One of the best ways by which Kant makes the understanding of sublime very outstanding is by comparing it to beauty. This is because when the similarities between the two are known, it becomes easier for a person who understands beauty to understand sublime from that view point. In making the comparison, Kant uses two major attributes to find the similarities between the beautiful and sublime. These are in terms of quality and quantity. Similarities in quality As far as the attribute of quality is concerned, Kant held that both the beautiful and sublime please in themselves. By implication, the beautiful and the sublime are both so based on their own account (Rueger & Evren, 2005). By extension, it cannot be possible to deny the beautiful and the sublime their qualities of being what they are. It is not surprising that some other philosophers have confirmed the universality of both the beautiful and sublime (Hopkins, 2001). As a universal quality, something that is beautiful at one setting is expected to be appreciated as such when taken to any other setting. In the same vein, an object or event that is considered sublime retains that quality anywhere it is to be judged. Because the beautiful and sublime are based on their own account, they are devoid of any personal interest. For example a person who does not have interest in ships should still be able to see kind of ship and acknowledge it to be either beautiful or sublime as personal interest is defeated when approaching the qualities of beauty and sublime. The second similarity Kant sees with the beautiful and sublime as qualities is the fact that the two are made up of faculty of presentation which provides pleasure in conjunction with the faculty of their fundamental concepts (Kain, 2009). By explanation, when imagining the beautiful or the sublime, it should be possible to attain a level of aesthetic pleasure which emanates from the concepts being thought of. It is therefore not surprising that a person making an imagination of a sublime or beautiful woman or beach in the mind can be found bursting out in a smile. Using the explanation of Kant on the similarities between the beautiful and the sublime, the person bursting out in a smile did not do so because of the mental sight of the woman or the beauty. Rather, it was due to the pleasure that the concept of sublime and beauty carries in the woman or beach. It is therefore right to reason that a common trait shared between the beautiful and the sublime is based on the fact that they are indeterminate concepts. Similarities in quantity When judging the beautiful and the sublime as quantities, Kant believed that both the beautiful and sublime are expressed in singular judgments (Illetterati, 2014). What this means is that like beauty, sublime carries that quantitative value that makes it possible to see is it and appreciate it at a go. This means that a person does not necessarily have to be subjected to a concept or an object for several times before coming to appreciate it as sublime or beautiful. Rather, a single judgement is enough to tell that a thing or an event is either beautiful or sublime. It is therefore true to suggest that familiarity is not very necessary in giving an object or event its stake of being either beautiful or sublime. Where familiarity has to set in, then the real entity of either beauty or sublime has to be questioned. This similarity can be said to be linked also to the universal claims of both beautiful and sublime as they do not require a number of appearances for their judgments to be made (Fleischacker, 1999). One other instance of similarity of sublime and the beautiful based on quantity is the fact that in both concepts the professed universality is subjective (Janaway, 1997). This is a view by Kant that has been questioned by others if it does not defeat earlier descriptions by him which seem to suggest that the beautiful and sublime remain universally absolute in their own judgments (Hopkins, 2001). However, it is important to note that it is because of the fact that the beautiful and the sublime have their own accounts and please in themselves that makes them universal. It is not because everyone in the universe would see them as being beautiful. Again, referring back to the example of the sublime ship, this ship is considered sublime, of course because it has that quality in its own account and please in itself not because a person claims it does. By extension, in quantitative terms, both the beautiful and sublime will be subjective in their professed universality but personalised claims or the count of claims of beauty or sublime does not matter in denying what is beautiful, beautiful, and what is sublime, sublime (Brandt, 1989). Differences between beauty and sublime Regardless of the similarities between the beautiful and sublime, there are dividing traits that distinguishes the two. In the first place, Kant explained that the beautiful is well related to form of objects and events which have definite boundaries (Savile, 1981). By implication, it is possible to determine the extent of an object or an event’s beauty since it is connected with the form and have specific boundaries on which the description of beauty can be limited to. Sublime on the other hand is considered to be formless and thus exhibited in formless objects as they are only represented as the boundlessness that occurs in our mind (Rueger & Evren, 2005). Fleischacker (1999) further explained that the fact that the sublime is a representation of the boundlessness that occurs to the mind does not mean that a solid or absolute item cannot be described as possessing sublime. Rather, the real entity of sublime does not reside or rest in the object but the description of greatness that the mind gives to the object. Another major difference that Kant discussed about the beautiful and sublime was the fact that whereas beautiful is a manifestation of an indefinite concept of understanding, sublime represents an indefinite concept of reason (Crowther, 1989). By extension, beautiful is based on understanding of concepts whiles sublime is based on the reasoning attached to concepts. It is therefore possible to assert that in Kant’s discussion of the sublime, he sees it as an appreciation which is made by assigning reason to how an object or event could possess the kind of aesthetic distinction it has. It is therefore right to imagine that whereas the beautiful is acknowledged in relation to the real concept under discussion, the judgment of sublime goes beyond the concept to the mental relation and appreciation that the observer draws for the concept. In the opinion of Kant therefore, it is not enough to admire or seek to understand the aesthetic qualities of an object and think of that as possessing sublime. Rather, the real essence of sublime is established when a reasoning is made as to how and why the nature of aesthetic quality is possessed by the object. Relation between beauty and sublime Based on the similarities and differences, it is possible to draw the relation between the beautiful and the sublime from the perspective of Kant. First, it can be noted that beauty seeks to establish purposiveness in its form as it is based on understanding (Elliott, 1968). This relates to the sublime which seeks to violate the form of purpose but base reason as the means of establishing meaning for an object or event’s aesthetic qualities. Second, beauty can be seen as adapting the natural form to induce the human judgment (Brandt, 1989). In relation to this, sublime negates the form of naturalness in the human judgment as the appreciation of the sublime is based on neutral quality established between the viewer and the concept. Finally, beauty is said to be established based on the affinity of a person’s imagination. Quite related to this, Kant posits that sublime holds back the approval for ingenuity as the sublime is an inherent quality of an object or event which needless of a person’s approval, exists. Methods used to determine sublime With the meaning of sublime from Kant’s view point clearly established based on the comparison and contrast he does with the beautiful, Kant moved on to explain way by which the sublime may be determined. In his earlier works, Kant had debated that sublime is made up of three kinds which are the splendid, the noble, and the terrifying. In latter works however, Kant concedes that the forms or methods used in determining sublime can be reduced to two, which are the mathematical form and dynamical form. The explanations given to these two forms or methods of sublime are discussed below. The mathematically sublime From a more generalised perspective, Kant explained that the mathematical sublime offers “aesthetical comprehension” in the sense that it is not just based on the consciousness of a mere greater unit but based on the notion of absolute greatness that cannot be inhibited with ideas of limitations (Kant, 1951, § 27). This were the idea of sublime being based on the absolutely great comes in. by referring to the absolutely great, Kant posits that when compared to a mathematically sublime, an object would be seen as being so great that every other object compared to it becomes small (Janaway, 1997). The mathematically sublime can therefore be said to have a quantitative measure or value when it is said to have a “magnitude which is like itself alone” (Kant, 1951, § 27). Because this value is only like itself, it can be identified as being one of the kind. There are however some weakness with the absolutely great when the question of the continuity of relativity of greatness is raised. For example when there are several events, the concept of absolutely great seems to suggest that it is only one of the events that can be mathematically sublime at a time. meanwhile, great is in itself relative and so it should be possible to determine more than one event that is sublime and later quantify these as more sublime or less sublime (Kain, 2009). Kant however reasoned that the mathematically sublime is based on a standard that makes the object or event in question one that is beyond any comparison. Given any set of events or objects therefore, the mathematically sublime, in the opinion of Kant is the one which is of the highest value of greatness. Explaining in terms of standard therefore, Kant noted that when an object is mathematically sublime, it cannot have an adequate standard outside it which can be used to express its magnitude and greatness (Crowther, 1989). This is more like saying that the mathematically sublime is great beyond any standard of measure. If this is so, there reference can be made back to the quality of sublime where it was said to be the only measure of itself. An important reflection that the mathematically sublime gives is that because of the magnitude of greatness, it is actually not possible for sublime to exist in natural objects. Rather, the real existence of sublime based on its description is only resident in our ideas of nature (Savile, 1981). In effect, even though considered mathematical, it is abstract rather than absolute. The dynamically sublime Kant also saw that it was possible for sublime to exist in a dynamical form. Here, the overall description given to the dynamical form of sublime is the “nature considered in an aesthetic judgment as might that has no dominion over us” (Kant, 1951, § 28). By extension, it is that object which can create an entity of fear for us “without being afraid of it” (Kant, 1951, § 28). This means that the dynamically sublime helps us to understand one other way in which the sublime can be felt since it is an absolute quality. Unlike mathematically sublime which seeks to put the value of sublime in the object in question, the dynamically sublime argues with the basis of what the object can do. It is based on this that Kain (2009) opined that the dynamically sublime takes place when the nature of an object or event is regarded as pure might. In this instance, the might is a representation or exemplification of ability. Kant therefore sees might to be exhibited in two unique forms which are either dominion or power. When referring to power might, one may want to think about something that is superior to great hindrances (Janaway, 1997). That is, this might has the ability to overcome any known hindrances. The second form of might as explained by Kant is dominion. Here, the dynamically sublime is thought of to possess the ability of being superior to the resistance of which the object or event might be faced with (Elliott, 1968). It is when the nature of the two forms of dynamically sublime are put together that the real meaning of dynamical sublime is gained. This is because the dynamically sublime judges us as having infinite power but this power has no dominion to overcome us. Based on this mood of manifestation of the dynamically sublime, there are two feelings that Kant argues a person may derive or experience from the view of the sublime. These are an affection feeling of fear and a feeling of insignificance. Even though these two feelings may generally be said to be negative feelings, their real intent is not to make us feel as though we were fearful or insignificant entities. Rather, the real essence of the feelings is in making us have a real appreciation of the objects or events being referred to (Crowther, 1989). A typical example of this is a person who has a house but sees another person’s mansion. Due to the dynamical sublime possessed in the mansion, the person may have a feeling of fear and insignificance for his own house compared to the mansion. Conclusion The real nature or basis of understanding on which sublime can be understood from the perspective of Kant has been found to be directly linked to what the concept of the beautiful is. In effect, Kant sees sublime as best defined and understood when discussed in relation and in line with the beauty. So far, it has been established that there are areas of similarities and differences that exist between sublime and the beautiful. Whereas the similarities make us understand sublime based on the knowledge we have about the beautiful, the differences outline some misconceptions we might want to avoid whiles describing the sublime. Some of the major similarities have to do with the satisfaction that both concepts bring, as well as the subjective affinity they possess. They are however different in terms of their level of boundaries as the beautiful has form, making it have definite boundaries. The sublime on the other hand is formless and therefore occurs only in the mind. The differences make it possible to conclude that sublime is an advanced form of the beautiful. References Brandt, R. (1989). The Deductions in the Critique of Judgment. Kants Transcendental Deductions. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Crowther, P. (1989). The Kantian Sublime. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Elliott, R. K. (1968). “The Unity of Kants ‘Critique of Aesthetic Judgement’,” British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 244–259. Fleischacker, S. (1999). A Third Concept of Liberty. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hopkins, R. (2001). “Kant, Quasi-Realism and the Autonomy of Aesthetic Judgement,” European Journal of Philosophy, 9, pp. 166–189. Illetterati, L. (2014). Teleological Judgment: Between Technique and Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press Janaway, C. (1997). “Kants Aesthetics and the ‘Empty Cognitive Stock’,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 23, 459–476. Kain, P. (2009). “Kants Defense of Human Moral Status,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 59–101. Kant, I. (1951). Critique of Judgment. Trans. J.H. Bernard. New York: Macmillan. Rueger, A. & Evren, S. (2005). “The Role of Symbolic Presentation in Kants Theory of Taste,” British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 229–247. Savile, A. (1981). “Objectivity in Kants Aesthetic Judgment: Eva Schaper on Kant,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 21, pp. 364–369. Read More