Taste in beauty is a subjective thing and every person has a different taste. However, Kant and Hume view differently on the taste of beauty. Hume claims “every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others.”(268-269) Whereas Kant thinks even though taste in beauty is subjective, people are still demanding others’ agreement. Thus, taste in beauty is subjectively universal.
Hume defines the standard of taste as “a rule, by which the carious sentiments of men may be reconciled; at least, a decision, afforded, confirming one sentiment, and condemning another.” (268) If a person said “this flower is beautiful” and I did not agree upon him, then to reconcile is a way to compromise. However, …show more content…
This is very different from Kant’s view on taste in beauty. In Kant’s Critique of Judgment, he raises a new term, “disinterest”. For the word “interest”, Kant means “the satisfaction which we combine with the representation of the existence of an object”(38). And for “disinterest”, Kant said, “we wish only to know if this mere representation of the object is accompanied in me with satisfaction, however indifferent I may be as regards the existence of the object of this representation”(39). This is where Kant agrees with Hume. However Kant also distinguishes three kinds of satisfaction: that of gratification is called pleasure; that of beautiful is called esteem; and that of an objective worth is called good. Among these three kinds of satisfactions, only the taste in beautiful is disinterested which means there is no “either of sense or of reason, here forces our assent.”(Kant, 44) Thus, for Kant, every sense with interests has desire in it and it cannot be the taste in beautiful. Following his thought, God and angles that are pure reasons have no sense of beauty; animals that are irrational have no sense of beauty since they will arose desire when they want something. But the sense of beauty is not about wanting a piece of painting, not about desire but the feeling in you when you first saw the painting. Such as the pleasure it gives you. And this simple pleasure is a sense of beauty. Thus, you say this piece of painting is
Hume defines the standard of taste as “a rule, by which the carious sentiments of men may be reconciled; at least, a decision, afforded, confirming one sentiment, and condemning another.” (268) If a person said “this flower is beautiful” and I did not agree upon him, then to reconcile is a way to compromise. However, …show more content…
This is very different from Kant’s view on taste in beauty. In Kant’s Critique of Judgment, he raises a new term, “disinterest”. For the word “interest”, Kant means “the satisfaction which we combine with the representation of the existence of an object”(38). And for “disinterest”, Kant said, “we wish only to know if this mere representation of the object is accompanied in me with satisfaction, however indifferent I may be as regards the existence of the object of this representation”(39). This is where Kant agrees with Hume. However Kant also distinguishes three kinds of satisfaction: that of gratification is called pleasure; that of beautiful is called esteem; and that of an objective worth is called good. Among these three kinds of satisfactions, only the taste in beautiful is disinterested which means there is no “either of sense or of reason, here forces our assent.”(Kant, 44) Thus, for Kant, every sense with interests has desire in it and it cannot be the taste in beautiful. Following his thought, God and angles that are pure reasons have no sense of beauty; animals that are irrational have no sense of beauty since they will arose desire when they want something. But the sense of beauty is not about wanting a piece of painting, not about desire but the feeling in you when you first saw the painting. Such as the pleasure it gives you. And this simple pleasure is a sense of beauty. Thus, you say this piece of painting is