自由遊戲與美的形式康德論鑑賞判斷（下）

Free Play and Beautiful Form: Kant on Judgment of Taste

10.29732/SJPS.200908.0001

鄭志忠(Jyh-Jong Jeng)

Imagination ； Free Play ； Aesthetic Form ； Judgment of Taste ； Mere Reflection

東吳哲學學報

20期（2009 / 08 / 01）

1 - 50

繁體中文

Kant maintains that the only principle of the judgment of taste is the principle of aesthetic purposiveness of nature. The two central concepts of which this principle consists are free play and beautiful Form. Many interpreters complain that Kant's concept of free play is obscure and ambiguous, and criticize that Kant can do no more than use metaphorical expressions to explicate his idea; and, as a result, they attempt to modify and supplement Kant's idea with their own interpretations. Among those newly proposed interpretations, Paul Guyer's so-called ”meta-cognitive” interpretation is seemingly regarded as the most comprehensive and persuasive. This paper aims to immanently analyze and criticize Kant's concept of free play so as to illuminate Kant's ”transcendental conception” of the judgment of taste, and then to argue that not only is Kant's concept of free play coherent, it also has its modern meaning. The fundamental point of Kant's transcendental conception is that a priori ground of the possibility of the judgment of taste is established on the basis of the features and procedure of the power of judgment. My analysis is conducted through the following four steps. First, the concept of free play is clarified and explicated by rearranging and comparing the relevant paragraphs of Kant. Second, the two fundamental assumptions of the ”meta-cognitive” interpretation, which Guyer attributes to Kant, are analyzed and criticized. In the first two steps, in addition to clarifying the concept of free play and explicating Kant's underlying conception of the judgment of taste, the principal difficulties and problems about understanding Kant's concept of free play are also pointed out. This set of difficulties and problems can be regarded as a leading thread that can be used to organize this paper's discourse structure. Two major problems are identified from this analysis: (1) How does an aesthetic representation relate to an object? (2) How is the mutual promotion or prevention between imagination and understanding in the aesthetic mere reflection to be understood and interpreted? Third, Kant's transcendental conception of free play and his principle of aesthetic purposiveness are explicated by comparing the similarities and differences of the procedures adopted in aesthetic ”mere reflection” and ”cognitive reflection” by imagination and understanding. Finally Ⅰ shall succinctly explain how to apply the principle of aesthetic purposiveness to the judgment of ”adherent beauty”; the explanation aims to show that the judgment of adherent beauty is still a judgment of taste about beauty of an object, rather than a judgment about the satisfaction in the perfection; and that although the latter is also a ”sensible” (aesthetic) judgment, it is no longer a judgment of taste in Kant's sense, because it contains a concealed judgment of reason about the perfection.

1. Allison, Henry E.(2001).Kant's Theory of Taste, A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2. Allison, Henry E.,H. Parret (Ed.)(1998).Kants Ästhetik, Kant's Aesthetics, L'esthétique de Kant.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
3. Bartuschat, Wolfgang.,A. Esser (Ed.)(1995).Autonomie der Kunst? Zur Aktualität von Kants Ästhetik.Berlin:Akademie Verlag.
4. Baumeister, Thomas.,H. Parret (Ed.)(1998).Kants Ästhetik, Kant's Aesthetics, L'esthétique de Kant.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
5. Bell, David.(1987).The Art of Judgement.Mind,96,221-244.
6. Biemel, Walter.(1959).Die Bedeutung von Kants Begründung der Ästhetik für die Philosophie der Kunst.Köln:Kolner Universitat Verlag.
7. Brandt, Reinhard.,H. Parret (Ed.)(1998).Kants Ästhetik, Kant's Aesthetics, L'esthétique de Kant.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
8. Brandt, Reinhard.,R. Brandt (Eds.),W. Stark (Eds.)(1994).Autographen, Dokumente und Berichte, zu Edition, Amtsgeschäften und Werk Immanuel Kants.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
9. Budd, Malcolm.(2001).The Pure Judgement of Taste as an Aesthetic Reflective Judgement.British Journal of Aesthetics,41,247-260.
10. Cassirer, Ernst.(1975).Kants Leben und Lehre.Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
11. Crawford, Donald W.(1980).Comparative Aesthetic Judgments and Kant's Aesthetic Theory.The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,38,289-298.
12. Crawford, Donald W.(1974).Kant's Aesthetic Theory.Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press.
13. Crowther, Paul.(1996).The Significance of Kant's Pure Aesthetic Judgement.British Journal of Aesthetics,36,109-121.
14. Düsing, Klaus.(1986).Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff.Bonn:Bouvier.
15. Fricke, Christel.(1990).Kants Theorie des reinen Geschmacksurteils.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
16. Ginsborg, Hannah.(1997).Lawfulness without a Law: Kant on the Free Play of Imagination and Understanding.Philosophical Topics,25,37-81.
17. Ginsborg, Hannah.(1991).On the Key to Kant's Critique of Taste.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,72,290-313.
18. Ginsborg, Hannah.(2003).Aesthetic Judging and the Intentionality of Pleasure.Inquiry,46,164-181.
19. Gregor, Mary J.,R. Kennington (Ed.)(1985).The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant.Washington, D.C:The Catholic University of America Press.
20. Guyer, Paul.(1997).Kant and the Claims of Taste.Cambridge and London:Harvard University Press.
21. Guyer, Paul.,P. Guyer(2005).Values of Beauty. Historical Essays in Aesthetics.Cambridge, U.K:Cambridge University Press.
22. Guyer, Paul.,P. Guyer(2005).Values of Beauty. Historical Essays in Aesthetics.Cambridge, U.K:Cambridge University Press.
23. Guyer, Paul.,P. Guyer(2005).Values of Beauty. Historical Essays in Aesthetics.Cambridge, U.K:Cambridge University Press.
24. Henrich, Dieter.(1992).Aesthetic Judgment and the Moral Image of the World. Studies in Kant.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
25. Hoppe, Hansgeorg.,G. Mohr (Eds.),M. Willaschek (Eds.)(1998).Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft.Berlin:Akademie Verlag.
26. Jauß, Hans Robert.(1977).Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik. Band 1. Versuche im Feld der ästhetischen Erfahrung.München:Wilhelm Fink.
27. Jeng, Jyh-Jong(2004).Natur und Freiheit. Eine Untersuchung zu Kants Theorie der Urteilskraft.Amsterdam:Rodopi.
28. Juchem, Hans-Georg.(1970).Die Entwicklung des Begriffs des Schönen bei Kant.Bonn:Bouvier.
29. Kant, Immanuel. ,Manfred Frank (Eds.),Véronique Zanetti (Eds.)(1996).Schriften zur Ästhetik und Naturphilosophie.Frankfurt a. M:Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.
30. Kant, Immanuel. ,Paul Guyer (Trans.),Eric Matthews (Trans.)(2000).Critique of the Power of Judgment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
31. Kant, Immanuel.,Gerhard Lehmann (Ed.)(1990).Erste Einleitung in die Kritik der Urteilskraft.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
32. Kant, Immanuel.,H. F. Klemme (Ed.)(2001).Kritik der Urteilskraft.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
33. Kant, Immanuel.,Karl Vorländer (Ed.)(1993).Prolegomena zu einer jeden Künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
34. Kant, Immanuel.,Raymund Schmidt (Ed.)(1990).Kritik der reinen Vernunft.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
35. Kant, Immanuel.,von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen(1902).Gesammelte Schriften.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
36. Kant, Immanuel.,von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin(1902).Gesammelte Schriften.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
37. Kant, Immanuel.,von der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (hrsg.)(1902).Gesammelte Schriften.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
38. Kaulbach, Friedrich.(1984).Ästhetische Weltkenntnis bei Kant.Würzburg:Konigshausen & Neumann.
39. Kulenkampff, Jens.(1994).Kants Logik des ästhetischen Urteils.Frankfurt a. M:Vittorio Klostermann.
40. Kulenkampff, Jens.,F. Ursula (Ed.)(2000).Der Schlüssel zur Kritik des Geschmacks.Kants Schlüssel zur Kritik des Geschmacks. Ästhetische Erfahrung heute. Studie zur Aktualität von Kants "Kritik der Urteilskraft".
41. Longuenesse, Béatrice.,Charles T. Wolfe (Trans.)(2000).Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
42. Longuenesse, Béatrice.,R. Kukla (Ed.)(2006).Aesthetics and Cognition in Kant' Critical Philosophy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
43. Marc-Wogau, Konrad.(1938).Vier Studien zu Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft.Uppsala:A.-b. Lundequistka Bokhandeln.
44. Meerbote, Ralf.,Ted Cohen (Eds.),Paul Guyer (Eds.)(1982).Essays in Kant's Aesthetics.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
45. Mertens, Helga.(1975).Kommentar zur ersten Einleitung in Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft.München:Johannes Berchmans Verlag.
46. Prauss, Gerold.(1981).Kants Theorie der ästhetischen Einstellung.Dialectica,35,261-281.
47. Riedel, Manfred.,G. Schönrich (Eds.),Y. Kato (Eds.)(1997).Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne.Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp.
48. Rosales, Alberto.(2000).Zum subjektiven Ursprung der Kategorien.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
49. Rush, Fred L.(2001).The Harmony of the Faculties.Kant-Studien,92,38-61.
50. Schaper, Eva.,P. Guyer (Ed.)(2003).Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment.Oxford, UK:Rowman & Littlefield.
51. Schwabe, Karl-Heinz.,K.-H. Schwabe (Eds.),M. Thom (Eds.)(1993).Naturzweckmäßigkeit und ästhetische Kultur. Studien zu Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft.Sankt Augustin:Academia Verlag.
52. Seel, Gerhard.,H. Oberer (Eds.),G. Seel (Eds.)(1988).Kant: Analysen, Probleme, Kritik.Würzburg:Konigshausen & Neumann.
53. Shier, David.(1988).Why Kant Finds Nothing Ugly.British Journal of Aesthetics,38,412-418.
54. Sonderheft des Jahrgangs(2000).der Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft.Hamburg:Felix Meiner.
55. Stuhlmann-Laeisz, Rainer.(1976).Kants Logik.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
56. Tonelli, Giorgio.(1957).Von den verschiedenen Bedeutungen des Wortes Zweckmässigkeit in der Kritik der Urteilskraft.Kant-Studien,49,154-166.
57. Wachter, Alexander.(2006).Das Spiel in der Ästhetik.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
58. Wenzel, Christian H.(2000).Subjektive Allgemeingültigkeit des Geschmacksurteils bei Kant.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
59. Zangwill, Nick.,P. Guyer (Ed.)(2003).Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment.Oxford, UK:Rowman & Littlefield.
60. 康德、牟宗三譯註(1992)。判斷力之批判。台北:台灣學生書局。
61. 康德、牟宗三譯註(1992)。判斷力之批判。台北:台灣學生書局。
62. 康德、鄧曉芒譯(2000)。判斷力批判。北京:人民出版社。
63. 鄭志忠(2006)。康德自然的合目的性原則的實用意義。揭諦，10，73-151。

1. 劉夢瑤,朱會暉(2021)。如何理解知性在審美評判中的作用？－康德美學關鍵問題新釋。哲學與文化，48(3)，123-138。
2. 鄭志忠(2009)。共感與超感性者：鑑賞判斷的規範性。國立臺灣大學哲學論評，37，43-119。