Flora Unveiled

Idealism and Asexualism j 437

437 437

On the other hand, Kant scoffed at the idea that Bildungstrieb could ever be explained by

mechanical principles:

It is quite certain that we cannot become sufficiently acquainted with organized crea-

tures and their hidden potentialities by aid of purely mechanical natural principles,

much less can we explain them; and this is so certain, that we very boldly assert that it

is absurd for man even to conceive such an idea, and to hope that a Newton may one

day arise even to make the production of a blade of grass comprehensible, according

to natural laws ordained by no intentions, such an insight we must absolutely deny

to man.^22

Although Kant was adamant that scientists would never comprehend the nature of

Bildungstrieb, he believed that they could at least chip away at the problem by studying

those aspects of Bildungstrieb that fell within the categories of understanding.^23 For Kant,

the utility of the term Bildungstrieb lay mainly in its heuristic value. It permitted biologists

to proceed with their investigations of mysterious phenomena as if the organism were acting

purposively, guided by some unseen intelligence.

During the Enlightenment, the psychological gulf between artists and scientists had

grown wider. Humanists felt the pain of this schism more acutely than scientists did, and

one of the chief goals of the Romantic movement was to bring about a reunification of aes-

thetics and the natural sciences. In Critique of Judgement, Kant attempted to provide the

philosophical foundation for such a reunification by comparing the “purposive character of

beautiful objects and organic nature.”^24 The primary “purpose” of art was to be beautiful.^25

But the creation of a beautiful art object could not be reduced to a set of instructions; oth-

erwise, anyone could be an artist. How, then, does the artist know how to create beautiful

objects? And how does the observer gazing at a work of art recognize it as beautiful?

According to Kant, the act of perceiving a work of art sets the imagination free to reso-

nate with the harmony of the artwork, thus evoking a feeling of pleasure. If the feeling

exceeds a certain threshold, the object is judged to be beautiful. In general, artists, com-

posers, and poets are people who have an intuitive grasp of the forms and patterns that

create harmonious feelings in others, a deep- seated awareness of what Richards calls the

“subjectively- felt laws of harmony.”^26 “Genius,” according to Kant, “is the talent that gives

the rule to art.” The art critic may attempt to identify elements that make a work of art

beautiful, but ultimately the attempt fails because beauty is an ineffable quality grounded

in consciousness.

Living organisms, like works of art, exhibit beautiful forms and patterns produced

by harmoniously interacting elements, which, while ineffable, seem to be created by the

Bildungstrieb, or formative power. The only way biologists can study living organisms, says

Kant, is teleologically— that is, as though they had been created according to a blueprint or

“archetype,” just as the Renaissance sculptor, Michelangelo, is reputed to have said that his

job was to liberate the forms imprisoned in marble:

In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and

perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison

the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.^27