84 theory
sponse, whether in the case of works of nature or works of art, to perceptual form
apart from all content and significance.” Guyer points out that “when Kant turns to
his explicit discussion of the fine arts—buried in the sections following the “Analytic
of the Sublime” and the “Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgments” without the benefit
of a heading of its own—it becomes clear that artistic imagination and aesthetic re-
sponse can play freely with content as well as form.”
- Kant characterizes the content of a work of artistic genius as “that represen-
tation of the imagination that occasions much thinking without it being possible for
any determinate thought, i.e.concept, to be adequate to it, which, consequently, no
language fully attains or can make intelligible.” Ibid., 314. - In a work of artistic genius, Kant tells us, “we add to a concept a representa-
tion of the imagination that belongs to its presentation, but whichby itself stimulates
so much thinking that it can never be grasped in a determinate concept, hence which aes-
thetically enlarges the concept itself in an unbounded way...inthis case the imagi-
nation is creative and sets the faculty of intellectual ideas (reason) into motion” [em-
phasis added]. Ibid., 317. - I. Murdoch,The Sovereignty of Good(New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 29.
- J. Dewey,Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, vol. 12 ofThe Later Works of John
Dewey, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, [1938]
1986), 388–389; see also vol. 4, 60–86, 87–111, and 142–143. - A. Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” inAlbert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist,
ed. P. A. Schilpp (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1949), 21–23. - For the reasons for seeing “philosophie antique” (ancient and medieval phi-
losophy) as a group of salvific enterprises, see P. Hadot,Philosophy as a Way of Life
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). - The friend is Philip Devine.
- J. Dewey,Experience and Nature, vol. 1 inThe Later Works of John Dewey, ed.
Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, [1925] 1981), 298. - E. Friedlander, “Kant and the Critique of False Sublimity,”Iyyun: The Jerusa-
lem Philosophical Quarterly48 (1999): 69–93, is a beautiful analysis of Kant’s discus-
sion. - L. Wittgenstein,Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Reli-
gious Belief: Compiled from Notes Taken by Yorick Smythies, Rush Rhees, and James Tay-
lor, ed. Cyril Barrett (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 53–72. - Ibid., 56.
- Father O’Hara, we are told by the editors, wrote a contribution to a sympo-
sium on Science and Religion. James Conant and Cora Diamond have come up with
the following information, which has not been, as far as I know, previously published:
Wittgenstein came across Father O’Hara’s piece by hearing it delivered as a talk on a
BBC radio broadcast. The piece was part of a series of twelve broadcasts, including
ones by Huxley, Haldane, Malinowski, and Eddington. The title of the series was Sci-
ence and Religion. The twelve talks were broadcast between September and Decem-
ber, 1930. O’Hara’s piece was subsequently published along with all the other pieces
in the series in M. Pupin, ed.,Science and Religion: A Symposium(London: Gerald
Howe, 1931), 107–116. None of the individual pieces in the volume are titled. It is al-
most impossible to lay hands on a copy of the original 1931 volume. But, fortunately,