William... The idealist realism of naturalist pragmatism was a later attempt to correct the earlier errors of Kant as those wrongs were understood by angloamerican pragmatists. This included a correction to the aesthetic theory of Kant and of idealist rationalism in general. It is however intriguing to speculate on how Kant would have held the ideas of Peirce if that were possible. In any event, the ideas of Kant are antirealist and no longer viable to most of the realist camps. The main point here in this topic is that the aesthetic and artistic feeling evoked by lofty works of high fine art should be a reasonable feeling and without any concern for matters of practical consequence. How the Kantean ideas on the feeling of art might impact on that little Peircean theory of art is not fully clear to me. ---Frances
-----Original Message----- From: William Conger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 22 December, 2010 6:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Surprised by Joy* This view totally rejected by Kant. How do you anwer to him? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 12:41:09 PM Subject: RE: Surprised by Joy* Frances to Michael and William and others... Under the philosophy of realist pragmatism, its normative science of aesthetics as understood by me holds that the consequence to a percipient of their subjectively attending to say lofty works of high fine art is not merely an evoked experiential feeling, be it emotional pleasure or practical enjoyment or intellectual admiration, but ought to be a reasonable feeling, and a reasonable feeling furthermore that should be tentatively agreed as worthwhile both individually and communally or humanly. If an artwork evokes a reasonable feeling, then the tenets of evolutionary love for humanity are also likely satisfied. This pragmatist thrust seems to be a very optimistic and global stance, but it also seems for me to be the best posited by philosophy so far.
