first time in modern history, the major global power – I am of course referring to the US – doesn’t have a project for the world. It is evident that the US has always defended its own interests, but it always imagined or at least presented its interests – I’m not casting a value judgement here – as linked to a project for the world. Following the Second World War, it was the Americans who assumed primary responsibility for the creation of the international system, starting with Roosevelt. Some international institutions were accessible to all
An Interview with Celso Amorim, Former Brazilian Foreign Minister
From Kant to Nietzsche
In 1796 a German politico-philosophical manifesto proclaims the 'highest act of reason' as an 'aesthetic act'. The ways in which this transformation relates to the development of some of the major directions in modern philosophy is the focus of this book. The book focuses on the main accounts of the human subject and on the conceptions of art and language which emerge within the Kantian and post-Kantian history of aesthetics. Immanuel Kant's main work on aesthetics, the 'third Critique', the Critique of Judgement, forms part of his response to unresolved questions which emerge from his Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason. The early Romantics, who, after all, themselves established the term, can be characterized in a way which distinguishes them from later German Romanticism. The 'Oldest System Programme of German Idealism', is a manifesto for a new philosophy and exemplifies the spirit of early Idealism, not least with regard to mythology. The crucial question posed by the Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling of the System of Transcendental Idealism (STI) is how art relates to philosophy, a question which has recently reappeared in post-structuralism and in aspects of pragmatism. Despite his undoubted insights, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's insufficiency in relation to music is part of his more general problem with adequately theorising self-consciousness, and thus with his aesthetic theory. Friedrich Schleiermacher argues in the hermeneutics that interpretation of the meaning of Kunst is itself also an 'art'. The book concludes with a discussion on music, language, and Romantic thought.
Edited by: John J. Joughin and Simon Malpas
The interest in aesthetics in philosophy, literary and cultural studies is growing rapidly. This book contains exemplary essays by key practitioners in these fields which demonstrate the importance of this area of enquiry. New aestheticism remains a troubled term and in current parlance it already comes loaded with the baggage of the 'philistine controversy' which first emerged in an exchange that originally that took place in the New Left Review during the mid-1990s. A serious aesthetic education is necessary for resisting the advance of 'philistinism'. Contemporary aesthetic production may be decentred and belonging to the past, but that is not a reason to underestimate what great works do that nothing else can. Despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism, film theory and art history, feminist aesthetics 'is a relatively young discipline, dating from the early 1990s'. The book focuses on the critical interrogation of the historical status of mimesis in the context of a gendered and racial politics of modernity. Throughout the history of literary and art criticism the focus has fallen on the creation or reception of works and texts. The book also identifies a fragmentary Romantic residue in contemporary aesthetics. The Alexandrian aesthetic underlies the experience of the 'allegorical'. 'Cultural poetics' makes clear the expansion of 'poetics' into a domain that is no longer strictly associated with 'poetry'. The book also presents an account of a Kantian aesthetic criticism, discussing Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Aesthetic Judgement and Critique of Judgement.
at the time Kant wrote the first critique and Kant uses it in this work to discuss an ‘immediate’ relationship between cognition and an object as opposed to a mediated relationship between the two, as is provided by concepts and judgements. The reason why Kant here is not just presenting an account of sensibility per se is his transcendental purpose. As Kant puts it: Since that within which the sensations can alone be ordered and placed in a certain form cannot itself be in turn sensation, the matter of all appearance is only given to us a posteriori, but its form
1 Modern philosophy and the emergence of aesthetic theory: Kant Self-consciousness, knowledge and freedom The importance attributed to aesthetic questions in recent philosophy becomes easier to grasp if one considers the reasons for the emergence of modern aesthetic theory. Kant’s main work on aesthetics, the ‘third Critique’, the Critique of Judgement (CJ) (1790), forms part of his response to unresolved questions which emerge from his Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) (1781) and Critique of Practical Reason (1787).1 In order to understand the signiﬁcance of the CJ
Between Adorno and Heidegger
antinomy of reason but with respect to Kant’s analyses of imagination, time and judgement in the first and third critiques. Adorno repeatedly returns to the critical philosophy of Kant and especially the analyses of the third critique, reading the division between aesthetic judgement of artworks 222 Reflections and teleological judgement of natural processes as concealing the possibility of a thinking of the processes of history as an elided combination and subversion of the diﬀerence between these two. Heidegger, in his study, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics
David Lloyd’s work
is that ‘the terms developed for aesthetic culture in the late 18th century, as constituting the definition of human identity, continue to regulate racial formations through the various sites of contemporary practice’ (pp. 63–4). Lloyd situates Kant’s formulation of aesthetic culture in the Critique of Judgement, and particularly his discussion of concepts of ‘common taste’ and ‘the public sphere’, as formative of Western racism.2 Lloyd states that his ‘formal analysis of the ideological Subject’ is a necessary complement of ‘material histories of the specific
Introduction 1 The public–private distinction is one of the ‘grand dichotomies’ of western thought. 2 The dichotomy has a complex history, which has generated numerous formulations of the opposition between public and private, most of which still inform contemporary understandings of the terms. In this context, subjecting the public–private dichotomy to critique, as many feminists have done
Kant’s Critique of Judgement that ‘Feeling . . . remains cognitive in a deeper sense; aﬀect possesses what Heidegger would describe . . . as “world-disclosive” power’.23 There is, as Cascardi indicates, an important sense in which insistence on the ‘mediated’ nature of feelings – on the idea that they rely on what can be stated propositionally – gets things the wrong way round. Kant says that ‘The general validity of pleasure [in beauty] and yet not via concepts but in intuition is what is diﬃcult’ in giving an account of aesthetics.24 Kant’s concentration on
John J. Joughin and Simon Malpas
sphere impinge upon those legislations occurring in another. Developments in knowledge and technology require new forms of administration, for example, which may in turn inspire diﬀerent modes of cultural representation. This notion of conflictual coexistence between the spheres is opened up for analysis by the relationship between the faculties of pure reason, practical reason and judgement set out in Kant’s three Critiques, which Habermas sums up with particular clarity: In Kant’s concept of a formal and internally diﬀerentiated reason there is sketched a theory of