Kant's Aesthetics | Analytic of the Beautiful and the Sublime

[@Reading_Uncomfortably]

So helpful, thank you! The best video I’ve found in helping to break this down into more digestible chunks so that I have the foundational knowledge on which to build a greater understanding in reading Kant.

[@1330m]

so good Kant's the sublime and Manndelbrot's the fractal are the same . That's the secret of science and aesthetics .

[@erumkhan6296]

Beautifully presented.

[@mitrikoudsi8060]

Loved this video! Thank you for introducing this subject 🙏

[@VinceAscaino]

I've enjoyed your way of presenting this .. your voice and the music are on point for an ADHD brain like mine. Most comes across as felt , not just read .. his purpose seems was to hand craft a raw language into a daug to bake the illusion of been undertood.

[@JustinVero]

Really good work. I’ve studied the three Critiques at the master’s level and this is a beautiful exposition on working within oneself in relation to ‘employing’ the faculties as an architecture of your own experience while reading, feeling and thinking with Kant.

[@mathiaswarnes6350]

Thank-you so much! That's probably the most 'qualified' recognition any of my videos have received yet on youtube lol. :)

[@luisneiva9893]

Hey! Amazing video! Is this part of any course one can take? Judging by what you said in the end of the video it looks like there's a structured teaching happening.

[@anamentucci281]

i appreciate you

[@KolotovGleb]

the music is a little bit too loud. However, a huge thank u.

[@compegord07]

And this demonstrates, as all writers both of any philosophical thinkers, and Kant, in particular show the prejudices of every person as both having a perspective and a message to convey, both explicitly and implicitly. And this gives the continually live example of the human experience. And it is rich, for indeed it includes all that is and every will be of what is human, in its basest and most degraded to its most sublime and Divine.

[@AdamGeest]

Which English translation of Kant's critiques would you recommend?

[@mathiaswarnes6350]

I like the Paul Guyer.

[@nathanielross295]

Contrary to popular belief, beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder: if i put a picture of a baby next to a picture of poop-and i ask a million people to tell me which is more beautiful, i would be willing to bet money that the grand majority would choose the picture of the baby. Further evidence of this-is the "color emotive response," which, for example, states "The emotion ratings showed that saturated and bright colors were associated with higher arousal. The hue also had a significant effect on arousal, which increased from blue and green to red." Modern day society has villified aesthetics. The relate beauty to vanity, arrogance, and shallow mindedness. I believe there exists an objective side to beauty, and a rational explanation for its effects. I also suspect there is a correlation between order and beauty, that humans apperceive beauty in orderly things, such as rythm, symmetry, fractality, and meter. I do not look down upon Narcissus for admiring his own beauty. Perhaps when the assholes that are responsible for mass surveillance install eye trackers on our phones, they will accidentally discover an objective and rational theory of beauty. "Beauty is a thoughtform in the mind of God." -Anonymous

[@cryptocoin5318]

That is what the video stated above.

[@_Azagoth_]

i agree with all of this. what i would say is i think the subjective part is style/presentation. because style is so connected to familiarity, perspective, etc. so two different photographers may choose to shoot a baby in different ways, and people may disagree greatly on which look is more beautiful, within reason. however the object itself is, well, objective. i would say the sublime is more subjective than beauty in a way that supports kant's quality of human character/faculties argument that is often problematised. so for example you have gothic art which takes macabre things like skeletons and horrific incidents of gore or repulsion or disfigurements and makes them cathartic - but only for some audiences. the way in which it is presented gives it a sort of vastness and overwhelming quality, but only some people can overcome it mentally, others choose to look away, the threat and repulsion is too strong for them. meanwhile, others confront it and find a sort of serenity in it. i for one love graveyards. sure they dont make me happy, but its a sort of vitalising melancholy that is sublime. other people cannot find that at all. however i would argue, and this isnt just my bias talking, that the people incapable of finding such catharsis in the macabre are of weaker character. as kant lays out, if you are unable to push through the threat of annihilation you are rightly valued as inferior and less competent in society, and this is true even down to an emotional level. if you cannot confront the reality of your death and the end of all that you love, on a regular basis too, then you cannot live with yourself or the world properly. hence buddhist meditation incorporates a frequent reminding of death, and hence you have pop gurus like jordan peterson reiterating classic advice such as "aspire to be the one who can stand up straight at your fathers funeral" and such things that have been forgotten in the last few decades. so kants argument isnt just a glorification of the noble savage its much deeper than that, its a reflection on all of us and how we handle morbidity. its not that the warrior is desensitised - if they were they would simply be psychopathic and unable to enact the qualities higher society expects of them - but that they are able to reason with what is shown to them, such as a corpse, and overcome its existential fear. when annihilation confronts you you must find your place in it. sadly alot of people cant do that, and i think that it is a growing problem because of how cocooned we are in current culture - which incidentally i think its the cause of the villification of beauty that you mention. beauty is in some sense intimidating, because it sets a standard. it calls out to be matched, not just admired, especially beauty in fellow humans. but that calling, that intimidation, is too much for many pampered modern people who just want to be accepted for being ugly.

[@nacezagar6291]

If only there were no music in the background. Your lecture is very thorough yet easily understandable, and you have an enjoyable voice, but the music in the background is just distracting. It’s making it difficult to keep my focus. It still gets a like, just something to consider in the future:)

[@mathiaswarnes6350]

I get this a lot. I also get equal amounts of appreciation for the background musics. Just have to live with it I guess and I, like many others, prefer the lecture with soundtrack component. I’m guessin this is a 50/50 split based on how brains are wired and regularity with which I get this comment as well as its opposite.

[@averagehauptsatzenjoyer]

@@mathiaswarnes6350 Maybe you could publish two versions?

[@mathiaswarnes6350]

@@averagehauptsatzenjoyer In theory yes but would take several hours each or most a day to open project files, adjust all levels, rerender, reupload. So feasibility wise, it’s not going to happen. There are hundreds.

[@cryptosuccess_ih]

Why is it no theoretical though?

[@staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

As compared to Burke, I find this pretty hard to understand

[@noexit4458]

4:45 unbridgeable what?

[@mathiaswarnes6350]

chasm