Kantian Normal Idea vs Santayana’s ‘Psychology’ of Defining Characters as Aesthetic Forms

The objective of the presented article consists in the juxtaposition of two depictions of mechanisms of imagination which we use to create averaged images of all sensual experiences. The first of them is Kantian normal idea conducive to the construction of adherent beauty, whereas the second - Santayana’s concept of formation of a generic idea, aesthetic type or an ideal. It is my conviction that both these proposals are convergent, as they refer to the same method of functioning of the imagination, however they differ in certain details, as they are inscribed in nearly entirely opposite aesthetic concepts. However, Santayana’s theory of character creation goes further than Kant’s concept, as it exceeds the averaged image of the normal idea, and, while not being equivalent to Kantian aesthetic idea constituting a certain product of genius, it heads towards the idealisation of representations available to all people. The purpose behind Santayana’s concept proves to be more practical as compared to the solution proposed by Kant. In this depiction, we should recognise a universal mechanism of the imagination in the formation of characters as aesthetic forms, enabling a person to define his/her place and gain knowledge on the human world of attitudes, customs and ordinary behaviours.

REFERENCES:

• Aristotle (1992). Poetics. in: The Poetics of Aristotle (p. 6 111). Edited with critical notes and a translation by S.H. Butcher. London: Macmillan and Co. Limited.
• Dickie, G. (1996). The Century of Taste. The Philosophical Odyssey of Taste in the Eighteenth Century. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Grzeliński, A.; Wawrzonkowski, K. (2014). Wstęp tłumaczy. In: G. Santayana, Poczucie piękna. Zarys teorii estetycznej. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
• Guyer, P. (1997). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge University Press.
• Guyer, P. (2005). Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics. Cambridge University Press.
• Guyer, P. (2008). Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant’s Response to Hume. Princeton University Press.
• Kant, I. (2011). Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. In: I. Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Other Writings (pp. 11 - 64). Edited by P. Frierson and P. Guyer. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge University Press.
• McCormick, J. (1988). George Santayana. A biography. New York: Paragon House.
• Santayana, G. (1986). Persons and Places: Fragments of Autobiography, ed. W.G. Holzberg, H.J. Saatkamp Jr., Cambridge (Massachusetts)-London.
• Santayana, G. (1896). The Sense of Beauty. Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory. New York-Chicago-Boston: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason; or the Phases of Human Progress, vol. 4: Reason in Art. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Wenzel, C. (2005). An Introduction to Kant’s Aesthetics: Core Concepts and Problems. Wiley­Blackwell.
• Żeleński­Boy, T. (1957). Wstęp. In: H. Balzac, Komedia Ludzka, Studia obyczajowe. Sceny z życia prywatnego (v. 1, pp. 5 - 31), trans. T. Żeleński­Boy. Warsaw: Czytelnik.