按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
of an object otherwise formless and in conflict with ends supplies the mere occasion for our coming to a consciousness of this basis； and the object is in this way put to a subjectively…final use； but it is not estimated as subjectively…final on its own account and because of its form。 （It is； as it were； a species finalis accepta； non data。） Consequently the exposition we gave of judgements upon the sublime in nature was at the same time their deduction。 For； in our analysis of the reflection on the part of judgement in this case； we found that in such judgements there is a final relation of the cognitive faculties； which has to be laid a priori at the basis of the faculty of ends （the will）； and which is therefore itself a priori final。 This； then； at once involves the deduction； i。e。； the justification of the claim of such a judgement to universally…necessary validity。 Hence we may confine our search to one for the deduction of judgements of taste； i。e。； of judgements upon the beauty of things of nature； and this will satisfactorily dispose of the problem for the entire aesthetic faculty of judgement。
SS 31。 Of the method of the deduction of judgements of taste。
The obligation to furnish a deduction； i。e。； a guarantee of the legitimacy of judgements of a particular kind； only arises where the judgement lays claim to necessity。 This is the case even where it requires subjective universality； i。e。； the concurrence of every one； albeit the judgement is not a cognitive judgement； but only one of pleasure or displeasure in a given object； i。e。； an assumption of a subjective finality that has a thoroughgoing validity for every one； and which； since the judgement is one of taste； is not to be grounded upon any concept of the thing。 Now； in the latter case； we are not dealing with a judgement of cognition…neither with a theoretical one based on the concept of a nature in general； supplied by understanding； nor with a （pure） practical one based on the idea of freedom； as given a priori by reason…and so we are not called upon to justify a priori the validity of a judgement which represents either what a thing is； or that there is something which I ought to do in order to produce it。 Consequently； if for judgement generally we demonstrate the universal validity of a singular judgement expressing the subjective finality of an empirical representation of the form of an object； we shall do all that is needed to explain how it is possible that something can please in the mere formation of an estimate of it （without sensation or concept）； and how； just as the estimate of an object for the sake of a cognition generally has universal rules； the delight of any one person may be pronounced as a rule for every other。 Now if this universal validity is not to be based on a collection of votes and interrogation of others as to what sort of sensations they experience； but is to rest； as it were； upon an； autonomy of the subject passing judgement on the feeling of pleasure （in the given representation）； i。e。； upon his own taste； and yet is also not to be derived from concepts； then it follows that such a judgement…and such the judgement of taste in fact is…has a double and also logical peculiarity。 For； first； it has universal validity a priori； yet without having a logical universality according to concepts； but only the universality of a singular judgement。 Secondly； it has a necessity （which must invariably rest upon a priori grounds）； but one which depends upon no a priori proofs by the representation of which it would be competent to enforce the assent which the judgement of taste demands of every one。 The solution of these logical peculiarities； which distinguish a judgement of taste from all cognitive judgements； will of itself suffice for a deduction of this strange faculty； provided we abstract at the outset from all content of the judgement； viz。； from the feeling of pleasure； and merely compare the aesthetic form with the form of objective judgements as prescribed by logic。 We shall first try； with the help of examples； to illustrate and bring out these characteristic properties of taste。
SS 32。 First peculiarity of the judgement of taste。
The judgement of taste determines its object in respect of delight （as a thing of beauty） with a claim to the agreement of every one； just as if it were objective。 To say： 〃this flower is beautiful is tantamount to repeating its own proper claim to the delight of everyone。 The agreeableness of its smell gives it no claim at all。 One man revels in it； but it gives another a headache。 Now what else are we to suppose from this than that its beauty is to be taken for a property of the flower itself which does not adapt itself to the diversity of heads and the individual senses of the multitude； but to which they must adapt themselves； if they are going to pass judgement upon it。 And yet this is not the way the matter stands。 For the judgement of taste consists precisely in a thing being called beautiful solely in respect of that quality in which it adapts itself to our mode of taking it in。 Besides； every judgement which is to show the taste of the individual； is required to be an independent judgement of the individual himself。 There must be no need of groping about among other people's judgements and getting previous instruction from their delight in or aversion to the same object。 Consequently his judgement should be given out a priori； and not as an imitation relying on the general pleasure a thing gives as a matter of fact。 One would think； however； that a judgement a priori must involve a concept of the object for the cognition of which it contains the principle。 But the judgement of taste is not founded on concepts； and is in no way a cognition； but only an aesthetic judgement。 Hence it is that a youthful poet refuses to allow himself to be dissuaded from the conviction that his poem is beautiful； either by the judgement of the public or of his friends。 And even if he lends them an ear； he does so；…not because he has now come to a different judgement； but because； though the whole public； at least so far as his work is concerned； should have false taste； he still； in his desire for recognition； finds good reason to accommodate himself to the popular error （even against his own judgement）。 It is only in aftertime； when his judgement has been sharpened by exercise； that of his own free will and accord he deserts his former judgements behaving in just the same way as with those of his judgements which depend wholly upon reason。 Taste lays claim simply to autonomy。 To make the judgements of others the determining ground of one's own would be heteronomy。 The fact that we recommend the works of the ancients as models； and rightly too； and call their authors classical； as constituting sort of nobility among writers that leads the way and thereby gives laws to the people； seems to indicate a posteriori sources of taste and to contradict the autonomy of taste in each individual。 But we might just as well say that the ancient mathematicians； who； to this day； are looked upon as the almost indispensable models of perfect thoroughness and elegance in synthetic methods； prove that reason also is on our part only imitative； and that it is incompetent with the deepest intuition to produce of itself rigorous proofs by means of the construction of concepts。 There is no employment of our powers； no matter how free； not even of reason itself （which must create all its judgements from the common a priori source）； which； if each individual had always to start afresh with the crude equipment of his natural state； would not get itself involved in blundering attempts； did not those of others tie before it as a warning。 Not that predecessors make those who follow in their steps mere imitators； but by their methods they set others upon the track of seeking in themselves for the principles； and so of adopting their own； often better； course。 Even in religion…where undoubtedly every one bas to derive his rule of conduct from himself； seeing that he himself remains responsible for it and； when he goes wrong； cannot shift the blame upon others as teachers or leaders…