Please post a 1-2 page reaction to this week’s reading “(Beauty, Community, and Universality” by Nehamas and “Subjectivity and Sociality” by Brent Kalar).
Discussion: Nehamas and Kalar
I enjoyed reading about the various approaches and the details that are given by Nehemas and Kalar based on the analysis made in terms of the ideas of Kant’s Universal judgment. Hereafter, I would like to mention that Nehemas has his own insight in order to take up his own way of learning about universality and to develop the aesthetics of judgment that is actually proposed by Kant. However, this is true that Kant and his ideas were basically rejected based on the idea to learn about the Universal Judgment and gather information about taste, beauty, universality, and even value the differences in order to gather an aesthetic judgment. Therefore, the theory which is pointed out to learn about Kant’s theological ability in order gather information about beauty for practical needs, can deprive the part of the same things in the world. Nehemas provide learning about human desire in order to get wider knowledge about beauty along with society. Therefore, Nehamas actually gives a descriptive note on the aesthetic disagreement that seems to create an inevitable benefit in order to open the enlivened perspectives based on realities.
In this context, in my opinion, I think Kalar has given a different perspective. Kalar has tried to focus on hermeneutic argument. This argument I mainly based on the analysis that creates the knowledge to learn about the commentators about Kant, who have been avoiding the main topic of subjectivism. Therefore, Kalar has made a determination based on the knowledge that mainly makes an interpretation to understand the universal judgment and the historical understanding to locate how Kant has made an interpretation to focus on the philosophy to end the goal based on the aesthetic quarreling. Kalar mentioned that Kant holds on to make a possibility to quarrel about the judgment based on the beauty that cultivates tastes, with more possibilities that are accounted with a dominant interpretation of his aesthetics. Thus, Kalar explains that this can be explained in a better subjective manner that facilitates the form of aesthetics to learn about social constructivism (Kalar, 2018). Therefore, “subjectivist-constructivist” forms the cultivation of taste without any attempt that conforms to the matter of fact. Hence, this creates reconciliation or a subjective perception on a mutual note which is often governed by the regulative goals that are constructed within the Universal community of agreement. Kant got a regulatory idea that deals with purposiveness to the roots of man. Therefore, these two have actually tried to focus on how Kant uses critical insight to focus on his power to give out judgment which has its own similarity with that of Nehamas and Kalar’s view towards beauty, the community as well as claiming about Universality. While Nehamas finds the analysis made by Kant is on an unnecessary and undescribed note, I found Kalar to be confused with his details on his rejection of the theory of Kant with his “subjectivism”.
Reference
Kalar, B. (2018). Subjectivity and Sociality in Kant’s Theory of Beauty. Kantian Review, 23(2), 205-227.
