The main topic of the paper is the analysis of Wittgenstein’s understanding of rules, i. e. their nature in terms of a paradigm of “language games” in the context of Kant’s ideas on the rules of art. The submitted paper is a continuation and elaboration of my research and reflections on Kant’s concept of genius, and partially, on Wittgenstein’s thought, presupposing a mystical aspect of the artistic sphere. The first analyzed connection corresponds with the theme of ineffability of rules as (...) well as affinity of the ideas of both philosophers concerning the issue of the process of understanding rules, i.e. grasping them in practice. In the second, less extensive part I analyze the hypothesis for the dynamics of rules which is a natural consequence of a playful activity in the language use or in creation of works of art. (shrink)

In 1764, Kant published his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime and in 1790 his influential third Critique, the Critique of the Power of Judgment. The latter contains two parts, the ‘Critique of the Aesthetic Power of Judgment’ and the ‘Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment’. They reveal a new principle, namely the a priori principle of purposiveness (Zweckmäßigkeit) of our power of judgment, and thereby offer new a priori grounds for beauty and biology within (...) the framework of Kant's transcendental philosophy. They also unite the previous two Critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason. Besides contributing to general and systematic aspects within his transcendental philosophy, Kant's aesthetics also offers new insights into old problems. It deals with feeling versus experience, subjectivity versus objectivity, disinterested pleasure, aesthetic universality, free and adherent beauty, the sensus communis, genius, aesthetic ideas, beauty as the symbol of morality, beauty of nature versus beauty of art, the sublime, and the supersensible. In this article I will limit myself to this critical aesthetics of Kant. But I will also discuss the ugly and the possibility of beauty in mathematics and see whether Kant's theory can successfully explain or deal with them. I will also compare his theory with philosophical ideas from a very different tradition, namely from Confucius, not only as a challenge to Kant's theory, but also because there is a growing interest from the Chinese side in combining ideas from Confucius and Kant, an interest that might well become influential in both East and West during the 21st century. (shrink)

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant describes schematism as a (A141/B180–1). While most commentators treat this as Kant's metaphorical way of saying schematism is something too obscure to explain, I argue that we should follow up Kant's clue and treat schematism literally as Kunst. By letting our interpretation of schematism be guided by Kant's theoretically exact ways of using the term Kunst in the Critique of Judgment we gain valuable insight into the nature of schematism, as well as its (...) connection to Kant's concerns in the third Critique. (shrink)

The article deals with Kant’s doctrine of genius, presented in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, in connection with the latest discussion of which author of that time could have a decisive influence on Kant’s conception. In the first section, I reconstruct the line of Kant’s argument in CPJ §§ 46-50 where he explicates the nature of genius and show that its characteristics such as contrast to rules, the complementarity of taste, spirit as a principle of aesthetic ideas, the (...) proportion between the power of imagination and understanding become constitutive for his theory. In the second section, I refer to opinio communis in the research literature that Kant formed his theory of genius under the influence of the Scottish philosopher Alexander Gerard’s Essay on Genius. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of contemporary researchers. Still, its origins go back to the monograph of O. Schlapp. At the same time, other researchers claim that C. F. Gellert, or merely German philosophy of the XVIII century, had a significant influence on Kant’s theory. In the third section, on the example of Kant’s four propositions about genius head, the productive power of imagination, the proportion of understanding and the power of imagination, the difference of genius and scientific talent), I claim that similar views were common among various German and foreign authors of that time. Based on this, I argue that Kant’s conception of genius as a complex theory cannot be reduced to the influence of one author or one tradition. Hence its correct reconstruction should consider the rich and diverse material from different sources from aesthetics, poetics, rhetoric, art, and literature up to metaphysics. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that a genius's creation consists of a special unity of free human activity and nature, whereby ‘nature’ signifies not just another aspect of, but rather something that transcends, creative subjectivity. This interpretation of a genius's creative process throws a new light on a special normative status of a genius's rule, i.e. its originality and exemplarity. With respect to the former, I demonstrate that because the organizing principle of the works of genius remains inscrutable to our (...) limited human understanding, a work of genius appears to the observer's limited cognitive capacities as undetermined and, hence, as contingent and original. With respect to the latter, I show how a genius must evolve within the context of her own tradition and how this ‘humbleness’ of a genius still allows for a multiplicity of co-existent schools or genres with their own distinct standards of excellence. -/- http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1369415411000343. (shrink)