Malcolm Budd on Delight in the Natural World: An Understanding of Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature.
Review of Malcolm Budd on
Delight in the Natural World: An Understanding of Kant on the Aesthetic
Appreciation of Nature.
Introduction
Aesthetic is a philosophical inquiry
or investigation into the field of art and its creative imaginative work. It is
sometimes called, philosophy of art, because it attempts to know the nature,
scope, limitation, and critical analysis and judgement of the work of art. In
assessing what should be the nature and scope of Aesthetic, philosophers right
from antiquity to modern era define what Aesthetic is. Beginning with Plato
understanding of Aesthetic……this is to recall what aesthetic means and
different views concerning its nature and scope.
Malcolm
Budd wrote an article concerning the views of Immanuel Kant’s work in a British Journal of Aesthetics titled
“Delight in the Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature.
Though his approach or methodology is good, beginning from exposition of Kant’s
view; meaning of pure aesthetic judgement, types and mathematical measurement
of Magnitude, thereafter his gave his own view and then conclusion. So in this
paper, we shall review what Malcolm said about Kant and his own contribution,
further, we shall attempt a bit of criticism of the article.
General Overview of Kant’s Idea in
Malcolm
In knowing what an aesthetic
judgement of sublime nature could contain, Kant asserted that, pure aesthetic
judgement of the sublime is a singular, categorical judgement that is not based
on an interest in or a concept of the object it is occasioned by.[1] Since perception is use as
the main tool in analysing and judging aesthetic object, but Kant’s fundamental
thought about the sublime in nature is that, sublimity cannot properly be
predicated of any natural object.[2] Because, for Kant
‘sublime’ is a term of approval, but in itself an object that precipitates the
feeling of the sublime and it is experienced as contrapurposive for ourselves
as embodied subjects, appearing incommensurate with our sensory or physical
powers, and as it were violating our imagination, that is, such object induces
in us a feeling of sublimity as well as to make us know that we are sublime as
a rational agent. Therefore, since the feeling of our own sublimity is
pleasurable, and this movement of our mind which is provoked by the sublime
nature must in some way be subjectively purposive.[3]
This
rational reaction of sublime nature generates two forms of sublime: first, the
mathematically sublime and second, dynamically sublime. And these two forms of
the sublime involve: (1) an estimation or (awareness) of nature’s immensity, (2)
an operation of the imagination, (3) a felt inadequacy in our power with
respect to nature, and (4) a compensating superiority over nature.[4]
Measurement of Mathematical Sublimity
Mathematically
sublime according to Kant is absolutely great or large, great beyond all
comparison. This definition is based on a distinction between two ways of
estimating or judging an object’s size; either an aesthetic estimation or a
mathematical estimation of magnitude.[5] For aesthetic estimation
of magnitude is made by the eye without the aid of measuring instruments, on
the basis of the object’s appearance in mere intuition. Further, Kant claimed
that, all estimation of the magnitude of natural objects ultimately aesthetic,
namely the most that can be grasped in a single intuition. For instance,
spatial objects are extensive magnitudes, and so can be intuited only through
successive synthesis of part to part.[6] And this is done through
apprehension and comprehension of the object. Though apprehension can be ad infinitum but comprehension of an
object has a maximum point one can reach. Also to estimate the size of an
object aesthetically, it must be possible to comprehend it or grasp, hold
together in a single intuition.[7]
In
having an aesthetic estimation of an object’s size, it must consist of distance
and condition concerning light, since the magnitude of any object is in
principle available as an aesthetic unit of measure. So the larger the object
the magnitude of which is to be estimated aesthetically the larger must the
unit of measure be. Malcolm added that, an aesthetic estimate of magnitude
involves the choice of a certain unit of measure and an estimate by sight of
the magnitude of the given object as a certain multiple of this unit. So the
larger the object, the larger the unit of measure required to estimate its
magnitude by sight.[8]
Dynamically Sublime
These
are displays of natural phenomena such like power of a hurricane, a tidal wave,
an erupting volcano, a bolt of lightning, the tumultuous ocean, the high
waterfall of a mighty river. In resisting these phenomena in nature, human
possess two powers: (1) the physical power, which is puny in comparison with
the might of certain natural phenomena, whose force is such as to overwhelm and
destroy us, and (2) the power not to abandon our moral principles and
commitment to morality, even under the greatest pressure. With the respect of
this nature has no dominion over us, because we are capable of regarding all
worldly goods, our health and even our life. In essence though, we are subject
to nature’s might with respect to our self-preservation as physical beings but
not as moral beings.[9]
To judge nature as being dynamically
sublime it must be thought of as something that we would be physically unable
to resist the might of, and so as fearful, an object to fear but in judging
it, we must not actually be afraid of
what we judge to be sublime. Another to judge dynamically sublime nature is
through imagination. This help to us to know even not certain the degree of its
power.[10]
The Meaning of Sublime Nature
With all these analysis of sublime
nature and the forms in which it could be assessed, Kant believed that, sublime
nature is an emotion with a complex phenomenology, possessing both a twofold
hedonic reaction and a twofold thought content, the two hedonic reactions
having opposite signs, the negative leading to the positive, the first
involving repulsion from the perceived object, while the second attraction to
it. The negative component of the feeling of the sublime is an unpleasant
awareness of the inadequacy of our sensory or physical power to construct an
adequate aesthetic unit of measure which can be taken in one intuition and
suitable for an estimation of the infinite.[11]
For
Malcolm, rather than identifying this pain of natural phenomenon or magnitude,
in the experience of the mathematically sublime, as rising from the
imagination’s fruitless struggle to come up with a accurate measure, it is a
clear realization of our relative insignificance in the immense order of
nature.[12] And on the other hand,
this pain could be view to originate from heightening of the sense of our
vulnerability to nature’s power when we are faced by and imagine ourselves
being subjected to it. Hence, looking at both cases, the sense of our being in
the world that tends to inform the way in which we live our life is disrupted.[13]
Malcolm pointed out the fault in
Kant’s aesthetic judgements about the sublimity of natural objects. For him, if
there should be any pure aesthetic judgement, it should not base on concepts
especially when it comes to purposes they have in nature. Another one is that,
he does not think that, Kant should represent sublime in nature as being a
judgement occasioned by the boundlessness, the immensity of matter or power as
these appear to us in perception. So for him, pure aesthetic judgement about
the sublimity of nature must be used on the intrinsic character of a natural
object’s or phenomenon’s sensible intuition or image.[14]
Critic of Malcolm Budd’s Position
[1] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, Vol. 38,
No. 3, (July 1998), p. 233
[2] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.233
[3] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.233
[4] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, pp.233-234
[5] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.234
[6] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, pp.
234-235
[7] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.235-236
[8] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.237-238
[9] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p. 241
[10] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.242
[11] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p. 244
[12] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.245
[13] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.245
[14] Malcolm Budd, “Delight in the
Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature” in British Journal of Aesthetic, p.247
Comments
Post a Comment