Abstract

While several commentators agree that Schopenhauer’s theory of ‘will-less contemplation’ is a variant of Kant’s account of aesthetic disinterestedness, I shall argue here that Schopenhauer’s account departs from Kant’s in several important ways, and that he radically transforms Kant’s analysis of aesthetic judgement into a novel aesthetic attitude theory. In the first part of the article, I critically discuss Kant’s theory of disinterestedness, pay particular attention to rectifying a common misconception of this notion, and discuss some significant problems with Kant’s approach. In part two, I argue that Schopenhauer gives up Kant’s concern with the transcendental conditions of the reflecting judgement, but nonetheless retains two crucial aspects of Kant’s analysis: first, the idea that pure aesthetic pleasure cannot be based on the satisfaction of some personal desire or inclination and, second, that aesthetic experience is ultimately based on the stimulation of our cognitive powers. For Kant, too, suggests that, although our application of the predicate ‘beautiful’ be independent of the subsumption of the object under any determinate concept, it still leaves room for the imagination and the understanding to play ‘beyond’ what is regulated by determinate concepts. For Schopenhauer, aesthetic pleasure is equally the result of the cognitive freedom and expansion that the ‘will-less’ attitude affords. Schopenhauer thus transforms the Kantian transcendental analysis of beauty in terms of ‘non-conceptual reflection’ into a psychological theory of beauty in terms of ‘non-conceptual cognition’. Hence, according to both Kant and Schopenhauer (or so I argue) a beautiful object yields a degree of harmony that cannot be reduced to the discursively rigid unity offered by conceptual knowledge. And, although Schopenhauer’s ‘idealistic’ version of aesthetic perception fails to accommodate for several valuable ways in which artworks can convey ideas, thoughts, and emotions, his account of aesthetic contemplation in terms of ‘will-lessness’ and objectivity is still rich in psychological insight.

Highlights

  • While several commentators agree that Schopenhauer’s theory of ‘will-less contemplation’ is a variant of Kant’s account of aesthetic disinterestedness, I shall argue here that Schopenhauer’s account departs from Kant’s in several important ways, and that he radically transforms Kant’s analysis of aesthetic judgement into a novel aesthetic attitude theory

  • I argue that Schopenhauer gives up Kant’s concern with the transcendental conditions of the reflecting judgement, but retains two crucial aspects of Kant’s analysis: first, the idea that pure aesthetic pleasure cannot be based on the satisfaction of some personal desire or inclination and, second, that aesthetic experience is based on the stimulation of our cognitive powers

  • I argue that Schopenhauer (i) transforms Kant’s logical analysis of aesthetic judgement into a novel psychological account of aesthetic contemplation, (ii) gives up Kant’s concern with the transcendental conditions of the reflecting judgement, and (iii) focuses on a peculiar, ‘will-less’ mode of attention to objects

Read more

Summary

BART VANDENABEELE

While several commentators agree that Schopenhauer’s theory of ‘will-less contemplation’ is a variant of Kant’s account of aesthetic disinterestedness, I shall argue here that Schopenhauer’s account departs from Kant’s in several important ways, and that he radically transforms Kant’s analysis of aesthetic judgement into a novel aesthetic attitude theory. While Kant grounds the disinterested pleasure of beauty in the ‘free harmonious play’of the cognitive powers, Schopenhauer too associates beauty with the quickening of our cognitive capacities, and (again like Kant) contends that pure aesthetic perception cannot be based on a subsumption of intuitions under determinate concepts He transforms the Kantian transcendental analysis of beauty, into a psychological theory of will-free consciousness and deep absorption, which (i) necessarily involves detachment from individual desires, urges, and affects, and (ii) affords a superior kind of cognition of the aesthetic object’s universal essence. Contra Nietzsche, Schopenhauer’s claim that the aesthetic subject’s exceptionally ‘pure’ state of consciousness allows it to discover the deeper objective essences of the world is hardly implausible: at least some (intense) aesthetic experiences, in which our self-consciousness dissolves and we become immune to ulterior aims and desires, enable us to unravel universal truths about mankind and its place in the world

CONCLUSION
PRIMARY SOURCES
SECONDARY SOURCES

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.