Kant’s Aesthetic Nonconceptualism

  • Dietmar H. HeidemannEmail author


The debate about Kantian conceptualism and nonconceptualism has completely overlooked the importance of Kant’s aesthetics. Heidemann shows how this debate can be significantly advanced by exploring Kant’s aesthetics, that is, the theory of judgements of taste and the doctrine of the aesthetic genius in Kant’s Third Critique. The analysis of judgements of taste demonstrates that nonconceptual mental content is a condition of the possibility of aesthetic experience. The subsequent discussion of the doctrine of the aesthetic genius reveals that aesthetic ideas must also be conceived in terms of nonconceptual mental content. Heidemann finally restricts Kant’s aesthetic nonconceptualism to the way aesthetic perceivers cognitively evaluate works of art, while he argues that the doctrine of the genius cannot count as a viable form of aesthetic nonconceptualism.


Aesthetic Experience Cognitive Faculty Aesthetic Judgment Transcendental Idealism Aesthetic Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison, H 2001. Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ameriks, K 2003b. New Views on Kant’s Judgment of Taste. In Interpreting Kant’s critiques, ed. K. Ameriks, 307–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermúdez, J., and A. Cahen. 2015. Nonconceptual Mental Content. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta,
  4. Engelhard, K. 2007. Hegel über Kant. Die Einwände gegen den transzendentalen Idealismus. In Hegel und die Geschichte der Philosophie, eds. D. Heidemann and C. Krijnen, 150–170. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. In ed. J. McDowell (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  6. Ginsborg, H. 1990. The Role of Taste in Kant’s Theory of Cognition. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
  7. Ginsborg, H 2006c. Aesthetic Judgment and Perceptual Normativity. Inquiry 49(5): 403–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ——— 2008. Was Kant a Nonconceptualist? Philosophical Studies 137(1): 65–77 [also published in D. Heidemann (2013), pp. 208–18.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gunkel, A. 2015. AutonomieMetaphysikEndlichkeit. Die Endlichkeit des menschlichen Denkens bei Kant, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  10. Guyer, P. 2009. The Harmony of the Faculties in Recent Books on the Critique of the Power of Judgment. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67(2): 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidemann, D. 1998. Kant und das Problem des metaphysischen Idealismus. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidemann, D 2002. Anschauung und Begriff. Ein Begründungsversuch des Stämme-Dualismus in Kants Erkenntnistheorie. In Aufklärungen. Festschrift für Klaus Düsing zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. K. Engelhard, 65–90. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  13. ——— 2012. The “I think” Must Be Able to Accompany All My Representations. Unconscious Representations and Self-Consciousness in Kant. In Kant’s Philosophy of the Unconscious, eds. P. Giordanetti et al., 37–59. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. ———, ed. 2013a. Kant and Non-Conceptual Content. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. ——— 2016. Diskursivität und Einheit des Selbstbewusstseins. In Immanuel Kant: Die Einheit des Bewusstseins, eds. G. Motta and U. Thiel. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Hughes, F. 2007. Kant’s Aesthetic Epistemology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kalar, B. 2006. The Demands of Taste in Kant’s Aesthetics. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Kirwan, J. 2004. The Aesthetic in Kant. A Critique. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. Kukla, R., ed. 2006. Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Makkreel, R. 2006. Reflection, Reflective Judgment, and Aesthetic Exemplarity. In ed. Kukla, pp. 223–44.Google Scholar
  21. Manning, R. 2006. The Necessity of Receptivity: Exploring a Unified Account of Kantian Sensibility and Understanding. in ed. Kukla, pp. 61–84.Google Scholar
  22. McDowell, J 2009. Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nagel, T. 1991. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? In Mortal Questions, ed. T. Nagel, 165–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schulting, D 2015b. Probleme des “kantianischen” Nonkonzeptualismus im Hinblick auf die B-Deduktion. Kant-Studien 106(4): 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomaszewska, A. 2014. The Contents of Perceptual Experience: A Kantian Perspective. Warsaw and Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations