Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- Aesthetic views of Immanuel Kant

F. G. Bozorova

National University of Uzbekistan,

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Philosophical sights of the scientist is there is a key to its creativity, to those secret stimulus by which the scientist is inspired and on which wishes to inform the world. Therefore, aspiration to disclosing of a certain sight to define character, to find the main root, is very labour-consuming work.

Will not be exaggeration if to tell, that the modern aesthetics was born in XVIII century. English scientist Shaftsbury and his followers have carried out excursion to sensual horizons of perception of the beauty. A Burk has spent the well-known distinction between categories of the beauty and sublime. Bath in France, Lessing and Winkelman in Germany has made an attempt to create certain criteria of an estimation of art. The contribution has brought and Leibniz followers and the most important modern use of the term «aesthetics» were entered by the teacher of the Kant A. Baumgartner. And still since Paton’s times any philosopher did not take away to aesthetics as scientific branch such important place in the philosophical system as it was made by the Kant. And also, any of its predecessors has not guessed, that such theories as metaphysics and ethics are incomplete without the third component – the aesthetic theory. Only the reasonable being is capable to feel beauty, without sensation of beauty reason activity is defective, - confirms the Kant.

The German classical aesthetics begins with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Greatness of the Kant-philosopher on advantage is not estimated yet, at least in our historico-philosophical science. We find at it an wrong and a various sort of error, often seeing them there where they were not and could not be, and not paying attention to that fact, that after the Kant in Europe really has changed all the image long philosophical thinking. The essence in that that in philosophy of the Kant the person from passive and a benefactor beings has been put forward on high level rather than earlier and understood now as the creator of the nature. We have not understood idea of the Kant even after V.I.Vernadsky's essential works which has shown, the truth on a natural-science example, that the person – the major and most powerful geocosmic factor in our Universe and that on natural processes it and influences and if not to consider its property these processes to us not to understand. But we have understood it after centuries when the most serious crisis situations and cataclysms on our environment have appeared suddenly, and that to all to it the reason, appears the person is.

So the great scientist and the foreteller have assumed the Kant, that only in aesthetic perception of the nature we comprehend a limit of the possibilities and we realize the relation to the world. The aesthetic view shows, that our point of view it and is our point of view, and that we are creators of the nature not in degrees, than creators of that point of view from which we look at it. As already it was spoken above sometimes we pass for limits of our point of view, but it not to comprehend the transcendental world, and to plunge into harmony of our feelings and objective things. And at the same time we realize a divine order which does this harmony possible.

Kant aesthetic views are in detail and as much as possible deeply stated in «Supervision over feelings fine and ennobled» (1764), to «the Critic of pure reason» (1781), to «the Critic of practical reason» (1788), and especially in «the Critic of ability of judgment» (1790).

«Criticism of ability of judgement» – it’s extensive, but in small degree connected with former transcend of Kant aesthetics. The contemporary attending lectures of the Kant on an aesthetics, has written down, that «the basic thoughts «Critics of ability of judgement» have been given in very simple, clear and entertaining style». When the Kant has begun work on this book to it already 71 year was executed, it is no difficult to doubt that that its ability is masterful to prove the opinions which is obviously observed in its former works, the beginnings to it to change. But nevertheless «the Criticism of ability of judgment» and nowadays, is considered one of the major works in the field of an aesthetics. Not exaggerating it is possible to tell, without it in modern understanding of an aesthetics would not be at all. Even very simple, clear both entertaining and seeming helpless – arguments, serve as the proof to exclusively original conclusions.

As a whole, the Kant did not wish to continue in the already to third «Criticism» research of problems which has lighted early two «Critics». He wished to prove, that an aesthetics as the knowledge and practical reason, possesses own importance. As between knowledge and practical reason «property of judgment» lays. Considering, that the judgment has both subjective and objective aspects, the Kant divides the Criticism into an aesthetics and dialectics. The first part considers the subjective parties, it is devoted the aesthetic judgment, the second considers the objective parties of the nature, and is devoted to natural displays.

The Kant aesthetics is based on fundamental philosophical problems which it expresses in the various ways, stating them in антиномиях. And so, it agree антиномии taste, the aesthetic judgment always contradicts with itself, because it should be at a time aesthetic (that is expression of subjective experience) and the general judgment applying for a general recognition. And still reasonable beings such as the person, it is simple owing to the rationality take out such judgments. On the one hand, the object gives to them pleasure, and this momentary pleasure is not based on what or the analysis of object, its mission, causality or a structure. On the other hand, they express the pleasure in the form of judgment, speaking so, and «as if the beauty is property of a subject» [1], that it gives to them pleasure, as objective value. Whether however it is possible? Pleasant sensations are momentum, are not based on reflection or the analysis, in that case on what basis we demand a general recognition?

The more close to approach to a beauty problem, this paradox is more clearly shown. Our sensations, feelings and judgments are called as aesthetic because they concern experience. Anybody on light cannot judge beauty of a subject which he never saw about which at all did not hear. Scientific and also practical judgments it is possible and it is possible to receive «at second hand». We will tell, it is possible to accept someone's authoritative judgment about physics problems, for example about use of magnetic fields. But how probably to accept let and authoritative judgment about advantages of pictures of Leonardo or Mozart's music if them saw and did not hear. Hence in aesthetic judgment cannot be rules principles. «It is necessary to understand as a taste principle of basing under which condition it is possible to bring concept of a subject and then by means of conclusion to deduce, that the subject is fine. But it is made it is impossible. For the person should receive pleasure directly from representation about a subject and to compel at it this pleasure by means of proofs, will be empty chatter». [1]. It is represented, that the right to aesthetic judgment gives us only experience, instead of conclusion so everything, that differs from sensual perception of a subject, brings difference and in its aesthetic importance (therefore, sensations from poetry are for example inexpressible). The Kant asserts that the aesthetic judgment is free from concepts, and the beauty is not concept.

It is known that, aesthetic taste is individual, subjective contemplation in it is priority. Great English philosopher D. Hume proceeding from it has told: «tastes differ». There are such aesthetic values which are caused by certain time, a social life, nationality, humanity, and also, culture. In such cases really «tastes differ».

So we appear before the first антиномии taste: «the Judgment of taste is not based on concepts, and that otherwise it would be possible to debate it (to come to the decision by means of proofs)» [2]. However this conclusion, apparently, contradicts that fact, that the aesthetic judgment nevertheless is judgment. That is, if some person or group of people has other opinion, concerning taste, especially to pay attention to private opinion it is considered as optional: their opinion is ignored by silence in the answer. Because, nobody has the moral right to reject and tell «me it is not pleasant» concerning valuable sights of thousand and millions people. So, the Kant puts forward following антиномию taste: about tastes, according to its conclusions, it is possible and it is necessary to argue, here it is possible to come to a consensus if aprioristic abilities of our soul are developed enough.

When I name something fine, I do not mean, that it is pleasant only to me: I speak about it, instead of about myself, and if it is required, I will try to give substantiation to it, specifying on properties of a subject. And any search of substantiation has universal character of rational activity. In effect I assert that others if they reasonable beings test the same delight what is tested by me. It results in the second formulation антиномии taste: «the Judgment of taste is based on concepts as that otherwise … it would be impossible even to argue on tastes» [2].

Conclusion, tastes differ and during too time about tastes it is necessary to argue. In this paradox there is a big share of the truth, for example: «E.Byork compares fine and ennobled, and investigates them as different categories. The Kant considers the same concepts as developing in harmonies. And Hegel's opinion differs from both above specified, it appears that raised is one of kinds fine, and that raised this transformation external fine in internal.

The Kant considers that to aesthetic feeling disinterest is characteristic. The estimation of the pleasant arises in sensation and is connected with interest. Kind we estimate by means of concepts, awe to it also is connected with interest. The beauty estimation is free from interest of feelings and reason. On the Kant the category of the fine has four features, and this one of its first features. In this plan in creativity of the German thinker similarity of sights to great East thinker Ghazzoli is observed. Ghazzoli in due time too has specified in disinterest of the fine. And also, the Kant speaks that the aesthetic feeling is not interested and is shown in the relation to a subject in a pure admiring. Into the account of relativity fine the Kant of the same opinion as well as Ghazzoli. Sometimes it so is obviously visible, that both thinkers as examples apply either the person or a horse. Except as at the Kant sights Ghazzoli in the developed form can be observed at such philosophers as: D. Hume, Berk, Shefstberi, Hatcheson. [4].

The second feature of the fine consists in its knowledge without concepts, without reason categories, it is understood by everything, that is it всеобща: «that is pleasant to all without concept means» is fine. The aesthetic judgment never gives in to logic discussion. The third feature fine is expediency though there is no representation about its purpose. «The beauty is a form of expediency of a subject as it is perceived in it without representation about the purpose». And at last, the fourth feature, fine it is necessary.

Along with fine the Kant investigates also a category of the ennobled. Ennobled, speaks the Kant: «The more terribly their kind, the is more pleasant to look at them if only ourselves are in safety; such subjects we name ennobled as they increase our sincere force over usual and allow to find out in myself of absolutely other sort ability to resistance which allows to us courage to measure swords with omnipotence of the nature seeming before us». The Kant considers, that the feeling of the fine is connected with quality of object, and feeling ennobled with quantity.

The Kant divides ennobled on mathematical and dynamic. The mathematical rose is connected with extensive quantity in time and space, and the second with quantity of force and power. Ennobled as an example it is possible to result the star sky, ocean in the first kind, and the second – fires, flooding, the thunder, earthquake etc. Both kinds ennobled surpass scales of our reason. They suppress us the power and in scales. Then, this feeling of depression is replaced with feeling of a certain revival of our consciousness. The reason is capable to learn the phenomena ennobled over higher. For this reason we feel ourselves great and able at inspiration of the raised phenomena. The present raised is reason, ethical human nature, and aspiration to потустороннему. Proceeding from it, the Kant considers, that raised it is necessary to search for the present in a shower of the person. The person not capable neither to feel of greatness of the nature nor to test awe of it is deprived very important for everyone reasonable a being of comprehension of limitation of the possibilities. He is not able to look at itself (himself) with трансцендентальной the points of view, points from which there are morals.

Kant revolution in philosophy has designated indissoluble communication of philosophy – aesthetics – practical reason (ethics). The person as the figure and creator recreates itself and the nature, confirming in the world Beauty.

Bibliograph

1.Kant I. Critique of Judgment. – Collection of works in six volumes. – V. 5. – M., 1964.

2.Asmus V.F. Immanuel Kant. – M., 1973.

3.Afasizhev M.N. Kant's aesthetics. – M., 1975.

4.Gulyga A.V. Kant. – M., 1981.