Abstract
I propose in this paper an interpretation of Kant’s fascinating notion of “aesthetic ideas”. I contend that aesthetic ideas, in spite of Kant’s way of explicating them in those terms, are not mirror images, sensible counterparts or translations of intellectual or rational ideas. Rather, they have independent life. They present what cannot be available by any other means and thereby make a poem (or an artwork in general) a unique, singular, insubstitutable individual. This reading of the notion can shed a different light on Kant’s view that a poem should look like nature. If we focus on Kant’s description of “genius” as a source of aesthetic ideas, this seemingly mysterious concept begins to make a nuanced sense: concepts of genius and aesthetic ideas are what I call “medium-centric” notions. To write a poem is to play upon the medium and discover aesthetic ideas; a poet who can achieve this is or has genius.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kant (1987), 49: 183 (All references to Kant’s third Critique are indicated by a section number followed by a page number. In this note 49 indicates the relevant section number and 183 the relevant page number.).
Ibid., 49: 181.
Ibid., 49: 182.
Ibid., 49: 182.
Ibid., 49: 184.
Ibid., 49: 182.
Ibid., 49: 183.
Ibid., 49: 183.
Ibid., 49: 183.
Ibid., 49: 184–185.
Ibid., 49: 183, my emphasis.
Guyer (1997), 359.
Kant (1987), 49: 182, my italics.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., 49: 183.
Ibid., 45: 174.
Ibid., 43: 170.
Ibid., 46: 174.
Guyer (1997), 351.
Rogerson (1986), 99.
McCloksey (1987), 118.
Collingwood (1938), 111–115.
Michael McGhee also makes a similar point in McGhee (2004).
Kant (1987), Sections 10 and 11.
Ibid., 49: 186.
Ibid., 49: 183.
Wood (2005), 168.
Kant (1987), 49: 183–184.
Ibid., 49: 185.
Allison also describes the creative use of “aesthetic attributes” in terms of “discovery”: Allison (2001), 285.
Ibid., 46: 175.
Ibid.
Ibid., 43: 171.
Ibid., 46: 175.
Ibid., 43: 170–71.
Guyer (2005), 250–251.
Kant (1987), 46: 175 and 44: 173.
John White also makes a somewhat similar point: White (1995), 89.
McCloskey (1987), 116–118.
Ibid., 117.
Kant (1987), 53: 196–97, my emphasis.
References
Allison, H. (2001). Kant’s theory of taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collingwood, R. G. (1938). Principles of art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Guyer, P. (1997). Kant and the claims of taste (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1987/1790). Critique of judgment (translated by W. S. Pluhar). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
McCloskey, M. (1987). Kant’s aesthetic. London: Macmillan.
McGhee, M. (2004). (Sailing to) Byzantium: the Kantian Sublime. In S. Deshpande (Ed.) 200 Years of Kant, Indian Philosophical Quarterly: special number, (Vol. 31, no. 1–4, pp. 177–198). Pune: Department of Philosophy, Savitribai Phule Pune University
Rogerson, K. (1986). Kant’s aesthetic: The roles of form and expression. Lanham: University Press of America.
White, J. (1995). Creativity. In D. Cooper (Ed.), A companion to aesthetics (pp. 88–91). London: Blackwell.
Wood, A. (2005). Kant. London: Blackwell.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a chapter in my doctoral thesis titled “Poetry for poetry’s sake: a defence” submitted to the University of Southampton. I am thankful to Alex Neill and Aaron Ridley for their comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bagad, P. A Poem is “Another Nature”: A Reading of Kant’s “Aesthetic Ideas”. J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. 34, 161–173 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-016-0079-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-016-0079-1