The departure from our shared sentiments, when presented as being universally accessible, provokes our minds and frustrates our
Sanchez 4 understandings of beauty in the world. To speak with the revered universal voice then, is to engage in a charitable negotiation of incompatible, yet self-determined, sentiments. We employ others to share in the not-so-necessary necessary pleasures we experience. But why is it worth the trouble?
With Hume we know our sentiments are self-determined, and with Kant their competition is besides the point. In a way, both can understand our constant trend towards divergence, but applaud and ascribe great merit and credibility to the delicate sentiment of a true critic. To this end, perhaps there are pleasures …show more content…
So critical, it’s reason for preferring Kant’s account on our conflicting and coinciding judgments of taste as superior to the alternative. Still, I do not think Kant’s account has extensively exhausted the obstacles to achieving the universal voice of a true critic. But it prods at the limitations of our language. Recall the third moment, the form of purposiveness, and consider the following: When I hold a shovel in front of you, there’s no doubt as to the utility – or purpose – this shovel retains. Its purpose is to aid in the process of digging. It was produced in relation to how it was to be used and one might even say it was engineered towards a cause, the cause of digging a hole. So, in order for the shovel to manifest itself in the proper form to adequately complete this job, it must first be intentionally designed this way. The shovel, then, before existing in physical reality, conceptually existed in the mind of its creator. What we have essentially done here is taken an observation of a thing and attached, or imported, a concept to it. Importing concepts is not all that difficult, we do it all the time; a pen is used to write, headphone to listen, a fork to eat, a watch to tell time. Yet, somehow we become tongue-tied when asked to import a concept of
Sanchez 4 understandings of beauty in the world. To speak with the revered universal voice then, is to engage in a charitable negotiation of incompatible, yet self-determined, sentiments. We employ others to share in the not-so-necessary necessary pleasures we experience. But why is it worth the trouble?
With Hume we know our sentiments are self-determined, and with Kant their competition is besides the point. In a way, both can understand our constant trend towards divergence, but applaud and ascribe great merit and credibility to the delicate sentiment of a true critic. To this end, perhaps there are pleasures …show more content…
So critical, it’s reason for preferring Kant’s account on our conflicting and coinciding judgments of taste as superior to the alternative. Still, I do not think Kant’s account has extensively exhausted the obstacles to achieving the universal voice of a true critic. But it prods at the limitations of our language. Recall the third moment, the form of purposiveness, and consider the following: When I hold a shovel in front of you, there’s no doubt as to the utility – or purpose – this shovel retains. Its purpose is to aid in the process of digging. It was produced in relation to how it was to be used and one might even say it was engineered towards a cause, the cause of digging a hole. So, in order for the shovel to manifest itself in the proper form to adequately complete this job, it must first be intentionally designed this way. The shovel, then, before existing in physical reality, conceptually existed in the mind of its creator. What we have essentially done here is taken an observation of a thing and attached, or imported, a concept to it. Importing concepts is not all that difficult, we do it all the time; a pen is used to write, headphone to listen, a fork to eat, a watch to tell time. Yet, somehow we become tongue-tied when asked to import a concept of