The Sublime and Its Teleology: Kant—German Idealism—Phenomenology

239 Pages·2011·2.24 MB·English

by  Donald Loose

The Sublime and Its Teleology
Critical Studies in
German Idealism
SeriesEditor
Paul G. Cobben
AdvisoryBoard
simoncritchley–vittoriohösle–garthgreen
klausvieweg–michaelquante–ludwigsiep
rózsaerzsébet–martinmoors–paulcruysberghs
timoslootweg–francescamenegoni
VOLUME4
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.nl/csgi
The Sublime and Its Teleology
Kant—German Idealism—Phenomenology
Editedby
Donald Loose
LEIDEN•BOSTON
2011
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaper.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Thesublimeanditsteleology:Kant,Germanidealism,phenomenology/editedbyDonald
Loose.
p.cm.–(CriticalstudiesinGermanidealism,ISSN1878-9986;v.4)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-90-04-21819-2(hardcover:alk.paper)
1.Sublime,The–History.2.Kant,Immanuel,1724-1804.KritikderUrteilskraft.I.Loose,
Donald,1949-
B2784.S832012
190–dc23
2011035563
ISSN1878-9986
ISBN9789004218192(hardback)
ISBN9789004221413(e-book)
Copyright2011byKoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,GlobalOriental,HoteiPublishing,
IDCPublishers,MartinusNijhoffPublishersandVSP.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,
photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillNV
providedthattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,
222RosewoodDrive,Suite910,Danvers,MA01923,USA.
Feesaresubjecttochange.
CONTENTS
VolumeForeword...................................................... vii
Introduction:TheKantianSublimeandItsAftermath............... 1
DonaldLoose
TheGenuineSublime:KantontheSublimityofMoral
Consciousness....................................................... 13
HermanvanErp
Kant’sAestheticsofMorals............................................ 43
BirgitRecki
TheDynamicSublimeasthePivotingPointbetweenNatureand
FreedominKant .................................................... 53
DonaldLoose
Sublimity,Freedom,andNecessityinthePhilosophyofKant ....... 79
ArthurKok
TeleologyinKant’sPhilosophyofCultureandHistory:AProblem
fortheArchitectonicofReason .................................... 115
ChristianKrijnen
TheLordandtheSublime:FreeLife’sTranscendenceofFinitude ... 133
PaulCobben
TheSublimeMonster.................................................. 159
JacobRogozinski
TheTragicalSublime .................................................. 169
SimonCritchley
TheSublimeandtheLimitsofMetaphysics .......................... 187
FransvanPeperstraten
Melville’s‘SublimeUneventfulness’.TowardaPhenomenologyof
theSublime.......................................................... 205
RuudWelten
vi contents
Contributors ........................................................... 223
Index ................................................................... 227
VOLUME FOREWORD
The sublime is an inherently transgressive and unstable concept in the
historyofthought.FromLonginustoBurke,thesublimeisunderstood
asaviolenttransgressionofhumanfinitude.AsKantexplainsintheCri-
tiqueofJudgment,thesublimeisanemotionthatplaceshumanbeingsin
the fundamental tension between infinity (Unendlichkeit) and finitude
(Endlichkeit), between immanence and transcendence, between repre-
sentation and that which exceeds it. Placing in question the priority of
beauty,thesublimeopensupthequestionoftherelationbetweenepis-
temology, aestheticsand practical philosophy in post-Kantian thought,
fromGermanIdealism(Fichte,Schelling,Hegel)throughphenomenol-
ogy(Heidegger)tocontemporarypost-phenomenology(Lyotard,Levi-
nas,Lacoue-Labarthe).
Theauthorsofthisbookinvestigate theunruly figure ofthesublime
asitappearsinthehistoryofphilosophyinandafterKantandassessits
contemporaryrelevance:notbyrepeatingthediscussionofeighties(that
wasconcentratedon theaestheticaldimension),but ratherby focusing
onthepoliticaldimension.TheyshowinwhatwaytheKantianlegacyon
thistopicinspirescontemporarythinking,eitherinlinewithKantorby
overcominghisprimaryimpetusforamodernphilosophyoffreedomin
acriticalreception.
PaulCobben,SeriesEditor,
TilburgUniversity,TheNetherlands

INTRODUCTION:
THEKANTIANSUBLIMEANDITSAFTERMATH
Donald Loose
What are we talking about when we qualify something as sublime? Is
it just a qualification of the beautiful in its most touching degree? Is it
a qualification of something outside there anyway? Is it a feeling or a
reflecting judgment on aesthetic appreciation? And can we reduce the
sublime to the aesthetic? The authors of this book all take the analysis
ofKantinTheCritiqueofthePowerofJudgment (CPJ)astheirprimary
reference. The argument of this book however is to show in what way
theKantian legacyonthistopicis still amain streamofinspiration for
contemporary thinking, either in line with Kant or by overcoming his
primaryimpetusforamodernphilosophyoffreedominacriticalrecep-
tion.
AccordingtoHermanvanErptwomainpointsofdifferencebetween
Kant’s aesthetic theory of sublimity and many other approaches of the
sublime are firstly,thatKant makes adistinction between whathecalls
thegenuinelysublimeandthesublimeinabroaderbutimpropersense
and secondly, that he seems to make a tight connection between this
genuine sublime and moral ideas. To clear up these points, the author
comparesKant’stheoryofthesublimewithBurke’sandSchiller’s,which
were both known to him and to which he also dedicated some short
remarks.
Thefeeling ofsublimity asapurelyaestheticfeeling isdifferent from
therespectforthemorallaw.Therefore,onecoulddistinguishthesefeel-
ings by the different names of awe and respect. Their resemblance and
relationship askfor explication, but particularly thedifference between
them must be elaborated more clearly than Kant did himself. Van Erp
arguesthataccordingtoKant,althoughmoralconsciousnessisthetran-
scendental precondition of the validity of judgments concerning sub-
limityandthecriterionforwhatcanbeconsideredasgenuinesublime,
within purely aestheticjudgments, we are not clearly aware ofthis dis-
tinction between genuine and improper forms of sublimity. When this
distinctionbecomesadeterminingelementinourjudgmentsofthesub-
lime,thesejudgmentslosetheirpurelyaestheticcharacter.