The texts in this edition span his career and illustrate the development of his political thinking on the fate of Germany and the nature of politics in the Humboldt's concern is to define the criteria by which the Mearsheimer has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the behavior of great powers.
Their complex proposals for bringing the various arts under a comprehensive doctrine are an important source of concepts, issues and arguments that underlie debates in our own century.
Both are motivated by the question of whether our highly subjective and even irrational responses to artworks and other beautiful objects can have any sort of objectivity.
The idea that a distinct discipline can systematically deal with issues concerning art can be traced towhen Alexander Baumgarten called for a new science of perceptual knowledge, an aestheticae. In the Critique of Pure Reason ofKant hume comparative study essay disapproves of the increasing use of "aesthetic" in relation to taste in the German sphere of arts and letters.
But in a revision of that work six years later, Kant suggests that he is ready to reconsider. Fueled by the recent explosion of scientific knowledge, both Hume and Kant embrace the general optimism of the Enlightenment. Human progress was associated with the free but critical use of human intellect.
By overturning long established dogmas, the new science encouraged a corresponding scrutiny of traditional --and generally repressive-- religious and political institutions. Hume generated intense controversy and opposition for taking a further step, questioning the prerogatives of reason itself.
But why should such values support fertile growth in the philosophy of art? To a large extent, Enlightenment philosophy of art can be read as an ongoing renegotiation of the polarization of reason and sensibility, of thought and taste. At the same time, theorists were trying to take account of an emerging consensus that a broad range of creative activities belong together, to be distinguished from a range of more practical activities.
Poetry, music, dance, architecture and sculpture had previously been seen as more or less separate activities.
They now received the unifying label of the "fine" arts, "beaux arts," or "schone Kunst. Despite the obvious differences in the various media, theorists were expected to explain why a piece of sculpture belongs in a common class with poems and formal gardens, but not with jokes, pieces of furniture, or food and wine.
It was assumed that the fine arts are unified by a common function or purpose. InCharles Batteux summarized the emerging view by proposing that the fine arts share a common principle in that they all imitate beautiful nature.
The fine arts "are music, poetry, painting, drama, and the art of gesture or dance. Because the purpose of fine art is pleasure rather than utility, art should not represent nature "as it ordinarily is. Yet none of these writers explicitly understood themselves to be doing philosophy of art, and the subject of art is not always at center stage.
Hume, for instance, locates his essays on art and taste within the field of "criticism," as one part of a larger project of analyzing values. Many of his writings make little or no distinction between moral and aesthetic value.
Like Hume, Kant describes his mature reflections on philosophy of art, Part I of the Critique of Judgmentas an exploration of "taste. When his publisher advised him to suppress essays on the subjects of suicide and immortality as likely to invite prosecution, but wanted something to fill the gap created in a collection of essays, Hume supplied this essay.
Both studied writings by Anthony Cooper, the Third Earl of Shaftesburywho claims that we are naturally endowed with an "inward eye" peculiarly suited for the perception of beauty.
And both Hume and Kant studied the writings of Joseph Addisonoriginally presented in two influential London periodicals between and In contrast, Francis Hutcheson holds that beauty is not a quality of objects.
Hutcheson was a major influence on Hume.
Among the many assumptions guiding Enlightenment philosophy of art, modern readers probably find it most difficult to accept the idea that beauty distinguishes art from other artifacts.
In the tradition of Addison and Hutcheson, both Hume and Kant emphasize that beauty is characterized by a "sentiment" or feeling of pleasure. This leads them to worry about the undesirable implication that beauty, ugliness, and other aesthetic properties are not objective features of poems, sculpture, and paintings.
Because our responses to works of art seem to be utterly subjective and private, qualitative distinctions seem beyond debate or discussion. Hume and Kant try to escape this difficulty by denying that taste is a single, distinct faculty; they treat it as a complex response that involves sense perception, imagination, and judgment.
Both writers ultimately use taste and art as a basis for investigating a much broader range of issues concerning human intersubjectivity. He begins by outlining two competing "philosophies" or views on questions of artistic value.
The skeptical position, which he attacks, simply equates beauty with the sentiment of pleasure caused by the object. Sentiment "exists merely in the mind," so no response to a work of art is superior to any other. It would seem that there is no such thing as a wrong response to a work of art.
Common sense, which Hume will defend, holds that evaluative responses are neither true nor false, yet some are better than others; we cannot help but dismiss the taste of anyone who praises a minor writer like Ogilby above a genius like Milton.
In the second stage of the argument paragraphs 6 through 16Hume defends common sense by seeking a standard by which we can "confirm" one sentiment and "condemn" another.
Hume is sympathetic to the neo-classicism of his time. He points to the fact that some works attain critical approval across the barriers of culture and time, as when ancient authors such as Homer and Cicero delight modern readers.We will write a custom essay sample on Hume vs Kant Causality specifically for you.
for only $ $ Hume vs Kant Causality ; Rationalist and empiricist philosophies: Arguments by Hume and Kant ; Kant & Hume, Comparative Study ; Racism in Philosophy of Hume and Kant ; Kant’s Prolegomena ; Hume Versus Kant ; Kant and Descartes.
Immanuel Kant (–) is the central figure in modern philosophy.
He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HUME AND KANT.
Among the score or more of Enlightenment thinkers most significant to what is now philosophy of art, pride of place must go to David Hume () and Immanuel Kant ().
Their complex proposals for bringing the various arts under a comprehensive doctrine are an . John Rawls (—) John Rawls was arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century.
He wrote a series of highly influential articles in the s and ’60s that helped refocus Anglo-American moral and political philosophy on substantive problems about what we ought to do.
Kant and Hume stand at odds on whether the universe stays organized or frays at the ends because of their assertions that the universe was created perfectly, and in opposition the assertion that the universe was created imperfectly. Immanuel Kant (–) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields.