Thoughts? — Tom Storm

When a philosopher says, I am using Kant's theory of art to explain this artwork, they are a Kantian.

"As Kant said in the Critique of Judgment...." Another sign of Kantian aesthetics. Pretty exact, actually.

"Kant After Duchamp", by Thierry de Duve. He came to one of my art classes. Talked about Kant.

When a philosopher says, I am using Kant's theory of art to explain this artwork, they are a Kantian. — Jackson

Indeed, but some may not use such overt language, right? We then have to infer it from the critical perspective they bring, which is? (You've already partly answered this on the other thread).

Indeed, but some may not use such overt language, right? — Tom Storm

Actually, they usually do.

Again, emphasis on formal analysis. Treating the art object as not having practical purpose. Appealing to universality of judgment.

When I say "Kantian" I usually mean either 'brain-in-a-vat deontology' (narrowly) or 'epistemology-constrained ontology' (broadly). edit: Also, any deductively proposed 'solution in search of (a) problem(s)'.

When I say "Kantian" I usually mean 'brain-in-a-vat deontology' (narrowly) or 'epistemology-constrained ontology' (broadly). — 180 Proof

Yes, Kant reduces ontology to epistemology.

When I say "Kantian" I usually mean 'brain-in-a-vat deontology' (narrowly) or 'epistemology-constrained ontology' (broadly). — 180 Proof

Cool, so it's rigidity and method.

Cool, so it's more about a rigidity and method. — Tom Storm

Kantian aesthetics never asks, how does it make you feel? They reduce sensations, feelings, emotions to judgments.

Kantian aesthetics never asks, how does it make you feel? — Jackson

Read Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.

Read Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime — 180 Proof

If you read it, make his argument.

Edify yourself.

Edify yourself. — 180 Proof

So, you have no idea what Kant said.

I corrected your misstatement about Kant. I've provided you a wiki article summarizing the work which addresses your misunderstanding. Read or ignore the wiki (or the book it summarizes), that's up to you. "Sapere aude", Jax.

I corrected your misstatement about Kant. — 180 Proof

I missed that. Post your refutation. Telling someone to go read something is not an argument.

No argument needed. I refuted a statement with contrary evidence. QED.

I think it depends on the branch of knowledge that bases your criteria. One some is called a "Kantian" means that, at least, he or she is agree with most of Kant's works. Then, their arguments tend to flow around on Kantian perspectives.
We can put the same example as empiricism. If some says "I am an empiricist", he would tend to spread his arguments according to British empiricism: John Locke, Hume, Berkeley, etc...

No argument needed. — 180 Proof

Exactly. You gave no argument.

Cool question but surely this can't be answered a priori. Kant's oeuvre is such a sprawling, hulking beast that to be called "Kantian" could mean all the things you listed, or just some. And then you have positions like Zizek's for whom the only way to to hew close to the spirit of Kant is to break with the letter:

"Let us take a great philosopher like Kant. There are two modes to repeat him. Either one sticks to his letter and further elaborates or changes his system, as neo-Kantians (up to Habermas and Luc Ferry) are doing, or one tries to regain the creative impulse that Kant himself betrayed in the actualization of his system (i.e., to connect to what was already “in Kant more than Kant himself,” more than his explicit system, its excessive core). ...One should bring this paradox to its conclusion. It is not only that one can remain really faithful to an author by way of betraying him (the actual letter of his thought); at a more radical level, the inverse statement holds even more, namely, one can only truly betray an author by way of repeating him, by way of remaining faithful to the core of his thought". (Zizek, Organs Without Bodies)

To speak soley for myself, the Kantian in me is defined by a few of Kant's innovations: his recognition that our epistemic relation to the world is no different to the epistemic relation to one's own self (I am as much a 'noumenon' as things 'out there'); his understanding that thought generates its own (transcendental) illusions, and that error is not just an 'empirical' problem; his conception of human nature as, effectively, 'second nature', a matter of enculturation that makes of human nature an ongoing process, rather than something 'given', once and for all. And of course his discovery and invention of the transcendental, as set off from the empirical, making time and space themselves not merely givens, but subject to a genesis of their own. Lots of very cool stuff that Kant did.

Wow... thanks for this rich response. I am particularly intrigued by this:

his recognition that epistemic relation to the world is no different to the epistemic relation to one's own self (I am as much a 'noumenon' as things 'out there') — StreetlightX

If you don't mind me asking, how does that play out in ordinary life?

Prosaically, in the experience of pedagogy and learning (which includes both infants learning the powers of the body along with reason, as well as learning new skills as adults, which involves a learning of the self as much as the world), or in other limit experiences like madness, where our epistemic thread to ourselves is lost. In Kant knowledge is an achievement, and likewise, our mastery of ourselves is equally an achievement, and as such can always be undone or threatened.

:up:

what are the attributes of a Kantian, exactly? — Tom Storm

Oh, that’s easy. Exactly? The prime attribute of a Kantian is the recognition and development of, and the absolute necessity for, the dualism of his transcendental intelligence.

In theoretical philosophy, a Kantian maintains a view that there is necessary apriori structures of thought or understanding which order or form our experience of the sensuous world. And that these apriori structures or conceptual schemes are real only when they function in this way i.e. are conditioning the empirical or spatial-temporal experience. This means that a Kantian is a transcendental idealist who is also an empirical realist :)

In theoretical philosophy, a Kantian maintains a view that there is necessary apriori structures of thought or understanding which order or form our experience of the sensuous world. And that these apriori structures or conceptual schemes are real only when they function in this way i.e. are conditioning the empirical or spatial-temporal experience. This means that a Kantian is a transcendental idealist who is also an empirical realist :) — waarala

Pretty good summary of Kant. And I don't agree with Kant at all.

If you don't mind me asking, how does that play out in ordinary life? — Tom Storm

Good. My question as well.

:up: I think there is good ideas in his philosophy. His basic natural scientific standpoint is not mine though.

I think there is good ideas in his thinking. His basic natural scientific standpoint is not mine though. — waarala

I find Kant's influence to be mostly negative. It makes smart people stupid.

I could imagine that Kant's philosophy could make stupid people at least a little bit smarter.

I could imagine that Kant's philosophy could make stupid people at least a little bit smarter. — waarala

Kant is like an engineer explaining all the parts in great detail. But you're left with: Yes, but what is the point?