Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and The Philosophical Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Philosophical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
BY PHILIP MALLABAND
I interpret between
Kant'sdistinction freeanddependent beautyina waythatmakes itpossiblefor
tobejudgeddependently
an object beautifulwithoutbeingjudgedfreely
beautiful.Thisis an alter-
nativetotheanalyses
provided byMalcolm BuddandChristopher Janaway, which bothfacea
dilemma becausetheyentailthatan objectmustbejudged freely in order
beautiful tobejudged
Thedilemma
beautiful.
dependently is that thedeterminant
either ofajudgementofdependent beauty
is baseduponnon-aesthetic
criteria(iftheobjectis notfreely orelsethe
beautiful), judgement is
foran account
superfluous ofaesthetic value.My analysis ofthedistinction
allowsbothkinds of
beauty roleina theory
toplaya meaningful ofaesthetic
value.
I. INTRODUCTION
It is my purposein thispaper to challengetwo receivedinterpretations of
Kant's distinction in ?I6 of the Critique
of]udgementbetween freebeauty and
dependentbeauty.' The picturepaintedby Malcolm Budd is one in which
the distinctionis takento be betweenkindsofjudgement.A judgementof
freebeautyis a singular(pure)judgementof taste,and a judgementof de-
pendentbeautyis a complexjudgementmade up froma purejudgement
of taste and a judgementof goodnessof kind. Christopher Janawaycon-
ceives of the distinction as holdingbetweena judgementwhose groundis
the subject'saesthetic
pleasureand a judgementwhosecomplexgroundis an
aesthetic
pleasure and an intellectual pleasure. I considerthese analysesto-
gether,because the same dilemmaarisesforeach: eitherdependentbeauty
is a conceptsuperfluous foran aesthetictheory,or else it is a subspeciesof
freebeauty.The dilemmais a directconsequenceof the inabilityof these
accountsto deal withthe possibility thatan objectmay be judged depend-
ently beautiful but not judged freelybeautiful.Given that an interesting
I See M. Budd,'Delightin theNaturalWorld:Kant on theAesthetic Appreciationof
Nature:PartI: NaturalBeauty',British 38 (1998),pp. i-I8; C. Janaway,
ofAesthetics,
Journal
'Kant's Aesthetics
and the EmptyCognitiveStock',ThePhilosophical
Quarterly,47 (g997),
to Critique
pp. 459-76.References aretothetranslation
ofJudgement byJ.C.Meredith (Oxford
UP, 1952)-
? The Editorsof ThePhilosophical
Quarterly, PublishedbyBlackwellPublishers,
2oo002. io8 CowleyRoad, Oxford
ox4 yJF,UK, and 350
Main Street,Malden,MA02148,USA.
As I shallmakeclearin thefollowing
sections,bothBudd andJanawayhold
thattheconditionsformakinga judgementoffreebeautymustbe satisfied
if
? The Editorsof ThePhilosophical 2002
uarterly,
Kant goes on
(?I6, p. 73)
Much mightbe added to a buildingthatwouldimmediately please theeye,wereit
notintendedfora church.A figuremightbe beautiful withall mannerofflourishes
and lightbut regularlines,as is done by theNew Zealanderswiththeirtattooing,
werewe dealingwithanything but the figureof a humanbeing.And hereis one
whoseruggedfeatures might softened
be and givena morepleasingaspect,onlyhe
has gottobe a man,or is,perhaps,a warrior thathas tohavea warlikeappearance.
It is not at all clear what Kant's claim is. On the one hand, he mightbe
sayingthata churchis freelybeautiful, butwhenthebuildingis cognizedas
a church(as performing the functions of thatkindof building),it is judged
not to be dependently beautiful.It would remainthecase thatthechurchis
judged to be freelybeautiful;hence thejudgementthatit lacks dependent
beautymustderivefromits beingjudged not to be a good instanceof its
kind.This interpretation is consistentwiththe'complex'theory.
However,thepassage maybe reinterpreted. Kant could be claimingthat
a buildingwould be freelybeautifulbut forthe factthatit is a church.It
mightbe the case that we would judge a building'sinteriorto be freely
beautifulif(Kant's own example)it is decoratedwithwallpaperof typeW.
(Assumethisis the onlyway by whichan interiorcan be freelybeautiful.)
And buildingC (whichis a church)is not decoratedwith W; therefore the
lack of W is citedas preventing a positivejudgementof freebeauty.How-
ever,whenwe come to appreciatethefunctions ofa church,we realizethat
decorating it with W would be quite inappropriate;hence we are setting
unattainable(false)standards- we shouldnotbe lookingforWin a church.
And giventhefunctions of a church,we come to regardthestuccofinishing
as aesthetically valuable, and we reach a positivejudgementin termsof
dependentbeauty.W-dicor would make thechurchfreelybeautiful, but that
wouldbe an inappropriate addition(giventhefunctions ofthebuilding).
Similarly,withregardto Maori tattoos,the idea would be thata decor-
ated Maori could onlybe judged aesthetically valuable once thefunctionof
the tattoosis recognized.Once we realize thatthe man is a warriorand
requiresa 'warlikeappearance', then the functionof the tattoosbecomes
apparent,and we can make a positivejudgementin termsof dependent
beauty, whereas before we made a negativejudgement in terms of
freebeauty.The pointis notthata churchcan onlybe aesthetically valuable
as a church,but thatone needs to have the cognitionthata particularbuild-
ingis a churchifone is to makea positiveaesthetic judgementofit.
One finalillustration.The mayfly is a smallinsect.It cannotflyfar,and is
a weak flier;manyliveonlyforlessthana day,so thatoftentheydie before
producingany offspring. Withoutthese considerations, one would not be
S's experienceof
in which Ss pleasure
(=-S'sconsciousnessofformal
The freeplay of S's imag- caus or subjectivepurposiveness
in
inationand understanding thepresentation of o)
accompanies is theevidential
S's cognitionofoas falling groundfor
underconceptsF, G, H, ... S's judgement(oftaste)thato is
beautiful(= imputationofuniversal
pleasurein theexperienceof o)
Figure6. Fullerpicture
Janaway's ofthejudgement
oftaste
S's experienceofo
in which
S's aestheticpleasure
The freeplayof S's imag- causes (=S's consciousnessofformal
inationand understanding in
or subjectivepurposiveness
of
thepresentation o)
accompanies
S's cognitionofo as falling
underconceptsF, G, H,..
S's intellectual
pleasure
S's beliefthatF, G, H, .. cause (= S's likingforo as perfectly
purposeP
objectsfulfil fulfillingpurposeP)
S's desire that purpose are jointly
evidential
P be fulfilled grounds
for
S's judgementthato
is dependently
beautifhl
Figure7. Thejudgement
Janaway's ofdependent
beauty
ofLeeds
University
6 I am to MatthewKieran forhis commentson an earlierversionofthispaper.
grateful
? The EditorsofThePhilosophical
Quarterly,
2002