Robert Campbell Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I don't see any harm in an actual discussion of Kant's conception of the sublime.It would give me an excuse to read more of The Critique of the Power of Judgment.Most academic philosophers don't seem to pay attention to that book. I recall Jan Narveson objecting to anyone citing Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason in a discussion of Kant's moral philosophy—and throwing in Critique of the Power of Judgment for good measure.After the Cambridge edition of the book came out, I read the section on the theory of fine art (not the same as the section on the sublime) and found it rather pedestrian. But there was nothing in it that would lend aid or comfort to modernist painting or postmodernist anything. The main impression I got from it was that Kant didn't know much about any fine art, with the exception of poetry, and that he was unmusical to boot. It would be interesting to know where Rand got the Kant-is-the-father-of-nonobjective-art riff from. If Leonard Peikoff was her source, he was commenting on a book that didn't much interest him.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now